Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
Mil vs MOA
- Thread starter GundamZero
- Start date
Hey if a guy is versed in moa, use it. I'm saying I find it easier to work with a nice round number like 10 and I find Mil easier.
On a known distance range (Canadian matches) you can flip meters to yards or vice versa quite easily to match whatever you are using before you even start. You know the exact distances. If I'm out in the bush shooting ukd I just range my targets in meters, coincides with my method just fine.
Holding off using the reticle or dialing for wind depends on time. If its a slow deliberate I like to dial, I have the time. If its launch 10 rounds in 90 sec no sighters non indicated, I hold off as I go (I have been practicing this alot lately, damn that Fig 14!!).
The game I like to play is a team event, sometimes I see my own trace, sometimes I don't. I don't see it when sitting or shooting from a sling, its grand to have a spotter around.
Last edited:
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
I prefer to think about as what is the best method for the task at hand.
In an environment where everything is in MOA, why use MRAD?
In an environment where everything is discussed in MRAD, why bother with moa?
But being versant in what all this actually refers to will help every LR shooter.
Memorising your comeups for major ranges, idea of lead for standard speeds, general idea of angle and how it affects drop, windage and ballpark drift values... this is stuff that I feel will help under the pressure of competition. Something as simple as reading the wrong line on a card can open up a whole can of WTF if you don't have a basic idea of what is going on... as long as you are comfy with what "should" be happening, it will help when things go wrong and your brain goes "the other LEFT".....
As I said before, anytime you need to converse with another shooter, better speak the same language/unit or you both will have some fun....
Jerry
In an environment where everything is in MOA, why use MRAD?
In an environment where everything is discussed in MRAD, why bother with moa?
But being versant in what all this actually refers to will help every LR shooter.
Memorising your comeups for major ranges, idea of lead for standard speeds, general idea of angle and how it affects drop, windage and ballpark drift values... this is stuff that I feel will help under the pressure of competition. Something as simple as reading the wrong line on a card can open up a whole can of WTF if you don't have a basic idea of what is going on... as long as you are comfy with what "should" be happening, it will help when things go wrong and your brain goes "the other LEFT".....
As I said before, anytime you need to converse with another shooter, better speak the same language/unit or you both will have some fun....
Jerry
Thank you Jerry, that is exactly how I feel about this subject.
I have only been involved with precision rifle for about 10 years now but I feel I have seen enough of both reticle styles to say there is no clear advantage to either one.
Mil advantages:
-smaller numbers can be easier to communicate in a team and easier to remember multiple come-ups
-10 mil turrets can be a little faster to dial if you shoot extended long range matches but we're talking tenths of seconds here..
MOA advantages:
-more precise click value
-most targets and references are to inch scale
If all of my friends were dealing with mils, I would have gone to the dark side to communicate easier. Since I have valued precision, I have stuck with the smaller .25 MOA vs .1 mil.
Again, if I was ever to gravitate towards team shooting, I would probably go to mils..
I have only been involved with precision rifle for about 10 years now but I feel I have seen enough of both reticle styles to say there is no clear advantage to either one.
Mil advantages:
-smaller numbers can be easier to communicate in a team and easier to remember multiple come-ups
-10 mil turrets can be a little faster to dial if you shoot extended long range matches but we're talking tenths of seconds here..
MOA advantages:
-more precise click value
-most targets and references are to inch scale
If all of my friends were dealing with mils, I would have gone to the dark side to communicate easier. Since I have valued precision, I have stuck with the smaller .25 MOA vs .1 mil.
Again, if I was ever to gravitate towards team shooting, I would probably go to mils..
You are well aware that what you said was incorrect? So because he is brand new, we should give him bad information? So far others have done a great job explaining the difference between the two. It isn't rocket science, but it isn't simple either.
More and more people are going to mil every day. This means that when you are shooting with other people, their wind holds, elevation, etc. will all be talked about in mils. Your spotter (if you shoot with other people) will be using mils.
People I see on the firing line these days using MOA struggle when everyone else is calling shots using mils.
Don't overthink this. You usually do not need to think of the target in inches, or your miss in inches. You have a ruler in your scope, the reticle. Your misses will all be measured through the reticle (which will be in mils or moa) and you will dial the mil/moa correction and connect on the next shot.
People I see on the firing line these days using MOA struggle when everyone else is calling shots using mils.
Don't overthink this. You usually do not need to think of the target in inches, or your miss in inches. You have a ruler in your scope, the reticle. Your misses will all be measured through the reticle (which will be in mils or moa) and you will dial the mil/moa correction and connect on the next shot.
The only stage I have ever seen that required you to relate mil or MOA to inches is a blind stage where your target is obscured (object blocks line of sight, but bullet arcs over it) and you're given the height of an object above it to aim at. The only reason to do it outside of a match is to create a target for a box test or tall target test to check that the scope is tracking.
Beyond that there is no reason to think about inches or cm or relate them to mils or MOA if you're using a modern FFP tactical scope. The reticle is basically a protractor that is calibrated in mils or MOA (angles). If you want to find an angle, it is easier to use one of these and just measure it?
Or is it easier to estimate rise and run and try to calculating the angle from the estimated linear values? That's exactly what you're doing when you think in inches and try to convert to an angle (mils or MOA). It's a silly and inaccurate way of doing things when you're not shooting at canned targets and canned distances.
Beyond that there is no reason to think about inches or cm or relate them to mils or MOA if you're using a modern FFP tactical scope. The reticle is basically a protractor that is calibrated in mils or MOA (angles). If you want to find an angle, it is easier to use one of these and just measure it?
Or is it easier to estimate rise and run and try to calculating the angle from the estimated linear values? That's exactly what you're doing when you think in inches and try to convert to an angle (mils or MOA). It's a silly and inaccurate way of doing things when you're not shooting at canned targets and canned distances.
Being an Engineering Tech by trade, I find Degrees, Minutes, Seconds considerably easier to understand. Simply because I really haven't used Radians a whole lot. All of our Trig work was done in DMS.
That being said, I am looking to purchase my first precision scope and can't decide between Mil or MOA. I like the fact that Mils are easier to communicate and base 10, but I really feel like I've grown up shooting and thinking in MOA and inches all the time. Anytime I'm out shooting with my buddies or my dad, all our range estimations are in yards and our misses are called in inches. I know off hand that an 8" miss at 500 yards is approximately a 1.5MOA adjustment off the top of my head. Id really have to sit and think about it if someone said 8" miss at 400 yards and I had to convert that to mils. Yes I realize it can be done and I could definitely start calling that 20cm at 400m instead to help ease the change over. Just putting those two examples down helped me see that I can easily figure out a 2MOA miss vs. a 0.5mil miss much easier.
I know I could learn both ways and I'm likely overthinking this. I should probably just buy the scope I want in whichever one I find first.
That being said, I am looking to purchase my first precision scope and can't decide between Mil or MOA. I like the fact that Mils are easier to communicate and base 10, but I really feel like I've grown up shooting and thinking in MOA and inches all the time. Anytime I'm out shooting with my buddies or my dad, all our range estimations are in yards and our misses are called in inches. I know off hand that an 8" miss at 500 yards is approximately a 1.5MOA adjustment off the top of my head. Id really have to sit and think about it if someone said 8" miss at 400 yards and I had to convert that to mils. Yes I realize it can be done and I could definitely start calling that 20cm at 400m instead to help ease the change over. Just putting those two examples down helped me see that I can easily figure out a 2MOA miss vs. a 0.5mil miss much easier.
I know I could learn both ways and I'm likely overthinking this. I should probably just buy the scope I want in whichever one I find first.
As another engineer, I also fine degree's easier to visualize than radian. But anytime I have to do theoretical mathmatics perhaps in writing an AutoCAD macro that manipulates geometry, I'm hardcore radians. But degrees make much more visual sense.
In the end, moa and milrad are simply both a measure of angle, and nothing more. The best thing to do is understand right angle trigonometry which is grade 10 math. Also realize the small angle assumption that sin x ~ x and tan x ~ x for small values of x when x is measured in radians. Since millirad scopes increment by a power of 10, and with the small angle approximation, the calculation becomes really simple, 1 millirad adjustment = 0.0001 * distance. Since our numbering system is base10, this reduces the calculation to simply shifting the decimal spot of the distance 4 spots to the right. Units are whatever you used for distance.
With moa scopes the small angle approximation can't be used. But out of lucky coincidence it turns out that 1 moa adjustment = 1.047" at 100y which almost always gets approximated to 1" at 100y. The calculation is a little more complicated espesially when placed with previous example of being off by 5" @ 800y.
But if you understand that all this is really just angle measurements and trigonometry, both are easy to use. Take the time, learn the math, and it no longer matters what you use.
In the end, moa and milrad are simply both a measure of angle, and nothing more. The best thing to do is understand right angle trigonometry which is grade 10 math. Also realize the small angle assumption that sin x ~ x and tan x ~ x for small values of x when x is measured in radians. Since millirad scopes increment by a power of 10, and with the small angle approximation, the calculation becomes really simple, 1 millirad adjustment = 0.0001 * distance. Since our numbering system is base10, this reduces the calculation to simply shifting the decimal spot of the distance 4 spots to the right. Units are whatever you used for distance.
With moa scopes the small angle approximation can't be used. But out of lucky coincidence it turns out that 1 moa adjustment = 1.047" at 100y which almost always gets approximated to 1" at 100y. The calculation is a little more complicated espesially when placed with previous example of being off by 5" @ 800y.
But if you understand that all this is really just angle measurements and trigonometry, both are easy to use. Take the time, learn the math, and it no longer matters what you use.
Both are faily simple. But consider than the last bastion of Imperial (the US) has gone to mils tells you something.
I prefer mils, but I enjoy both. What I really want is a mil based scope with increments of .05 mils in an MTC tactile experience instead of the .1 mils per click. MTC on .05, .1 and 1 mils would be awesome.
I prefer mils, but I enjoy both. What I really want is a mil based scope with increments of .05 mils in an MTC tactile experience instead of the .1 mils per click. MTC on .05, .1 and 1 mils would be awesome.
Yup. You have a country where the vast majority of people think in imperial units. But when you go to matches down there, 98 or 99 shooters out of 100 are using mils. The majority of them learned on MOA, but switched to mils after shooting a few matches. Its an individual effort when you're on the firing line, so no one is communicating under the clock. No one is spotting for you and feeding you corrections in real time. Everyone's trajectories and wind drifts are different unless they're shooting the same bullet at the same velocity.
I'd like to add radians are the mathematical standard for angles. I belive the military simplified ( 2 pi r or 6.28 r ) to 6300 for use in artillery.
I have a MOA scope and I'm looking to upgrade to a nicer scope with Mils next.
The advantage of mils to moa that I see are: mils correlates directly to clicks on the turret. Not that the math is any harder for moa. I also find that I'm more accurate subtending a reticle into 10ths rather than into 1/4s.
People say stuff like "I think in inches" and "moa is more accurate" but the truth is that we're not thinking in meters or inches or yards; we're thinking in angles. As far as accuracy, I recall a thread on this forum a couple years ago that proved mils in never out more than more than like 1/8 moa.
One last note, spotting scopes with reticles are difficult if not impossible to find in moa.
In conclusion I think it's best to just get what all your buddies have so you can communicate.
I have a MOA scope and I'm looking to upgrade to a nicer scope with Mils next.
The advantage of mils to moa that I see are: mils correlates directly to clicks on the turret. Not that the math is any harder for moa. I also find that I'm more accurate subtending a reticle into 10ths rather than into 1/4s.
People say stuff like "I think in inches" and "moa is more accurate" but the truth is that we're not thinking in meters or inches or yards; we're thinking in angles. As far as accuracy, I recall a thread on this forum a couple years ago that proved mils in never out more than more than like 1/8 moa.
One last note, spotting scopes with reticles are difficult if not impossible to find in moa.
In conclusion I think it's best to just get what all your buddies have so you can communicate.
