MIL vs MOA

[B]

I notice that lately bunch of guys using MIL scopes.

Isn't MOA more precise for airguns ?

Maybe not a big different when you click but for holdover I think MOA it's a better choice.

Share your expirience.

B

 

[Yo]

MOA is easier for me to calculate in my head it's close to one inch 1.047" vs MIL is 3.6 inches.

Actually once I get used to a reticle holdover is really fun to 100 yards using Chinese scopes. I click with my Japanese mismatched Reticle and turrets so it doesn't matter.

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2011/2/18/mil-moa-or-inches/

 

[L.Leon]

I like MOA for my air rifles. I like having more reference points.

 

[Eaglehorn]

It's a personal preference. If you're in a team and speaking the same language it's fine, but most people use mils so that's part of why I do the same (that and I tend to like mil reticles more). Just use whatever works for you.

https://www.snipershide.com/precision-rifle/stop-the-debate-mils-vs-moa-vs-iphy/

 

[MacGyver]

It's a personal preference.

What Eaglehorn said. In school we were taught MOA. It makes sense in my head, and I both get it and like it. Even though in school we were shooting firearms, for me there was no compelling reason for me to even consider changing when I started using air guns. Plus, most of the guys we work with on the range were all trained in MOA as well, so to toss another bone Eaglehorn's way, as he said, "If you're in a team and speaking the same language it's fine."

 

[ctshooter]

Preference is for MILS. I don't even think in inches, just cm and all factor of 10. It's become second nature after about a year. 

No issue with MOA if that's all that available for a scope I want.

I agree, if you want to get particular, that MOA is graduated in .25" at 100 yards where MIL is 1 cm at 100 m. Some higher end BR scopes come in 0.5 MIL increments.

 

[Guest]

One tenth mil at 100 yards is 0.329 (1/3) inch. Three clicks to the inch at 100 yards. Not enough difference to make a difference unless your rifle can shoot one hole groups at 100 yards and you are shooting flies.

I like both. I don't particularly like switching back and forth.

 

[shoot44]

del

 

[mmahoney]

I have a slight preference for MOA for the reason you descibe (finer adjustments). However, the reticle choice trumps this for me. If a scope has a Mil reticle that I prefer over their MOA reticle, then I'll get the MIL version of the scope and have no regrets.

 

[Scotchmo]

For FFP scopes of 16x and over, I prefer MOA/MOA.

For lower magnification FFP (<16x), MIL/MIL would be acceptable to me.

For SFP, I like mil reticles and 1/4" turrets.

 

[Dairyboy]

Prefer MIL myself. I don't range with my reticles and prefer the simpler MIL system. Having to only remember really from 0-10 MIL in using airgun distances it's just much simpler than trying to remember. Plus with a mark at every MOA it's just to much on the reticle for me. I prefer half mil reticles. Can find my hold quicker with less marks to get mixed up with. Could use MOA if needed but just prefer the MIL.

Watched a video yesterday of 2 ex snipers from different areas of military and one was used to MIL and the other MOA and one was spotting for the other and just lots of mix-ups with the words and it was rough. They knew what they were doing as one was the Reaper and the other LunkersTV but people not in the know of what is what would have gotten confused fast. 3 mil correction is way more than 3 moa.

 

[B]

So basically brunettes vs blondes.

I always find that MIL reticle on the scope I want is to busy for me so most of my scopes are MOA , but just got new scope in MIL and reticle I like just didn't have a time to play with it yet, so will find out myself.

B

 

[bandg]

So basically brunettes vs blondes.

I always find that MIL reticle on the scope I want is to busy for me so most of my scopes are MOA , but just got new scope in MIL and reticle I like just didn't have a time to play with it yet, so will find out myself.

B

Or a really beautiful redhead.

 

[Keyman62421]

I'm in the predicament of having multiple scopes. Both persuasions. When I try to rationalize 1 or the other. I just can't! 

Use mill for a while then MOA, which 1 one to use. Get rid off the others. Settle on 1 mil or MOA. can't! 

 

[SDellinger]

I use my reticle for aiming points. I make a range card and use a range finder for distance reading. I don't use a reticle for ranging. I also dial if I have time. If the target is 78 yards I just hold where the range card shows or dial for that yardage. Strelock tells me all the info I need. Of course I shoot all my distances in at a bench to verify. Doesn't matter what scale the scope is. I have a Hawke scope that is mil reticle but moa dials. I don't quite understand why they do that but I just hold where I'm supposed to and it seems to work. Have fun, Scott

 

[Smok3y]

I would say that they are just a different language. You are correct that the MOA adjustment clicks are technically finer if going down to 1/8, but 0.1 MIL clicks are plenty fine. I find math actually easier when working in multiples of 10 for MIL.

I too prefer to choose based on reticles and could care less what the mathematical language is. I have scopes in both.

 

[B]

So basically brunettes vs blondes.

I always find that MIL reticle on the scope I want is to busy for me so most of my scopes are MOA , but just got new scope in MIL and reticle I like just didn't have a time to play with it yet, so will find out myself.

B

Or a really beautiful redhead.

That would be MIL turrets with MOA reticle or other way around .LOL

B

 

[B]

Thanks for the input guys !!!

B

 

[Guest]

I prefer a busy scope for holdovers and Kentucky windage. More reference points for better precision. Also while perhaps slightly more cluttered, they generally obscure the target less at longer rangers than mill-dott. SFP only of course. 

As for clicking I like MRAD turrets and a mill-hash reticle. 

 

[JungleShooter]

There is another aspect to the MIL vs. MOA issue....



(1) I get my required amount of turret adjustment or holdoff from a dope chart or from a mobile ballistic calculator.

And after consulting either I need to committed the elevation and windage numbers to short-term memory so I can dial my turrets, or hold off with the reticle.


(2) The MIL system uses smaller numbers than the MOA system. And the MIL system does not employ fractions. So, the MOA system requires me to keep more numbers in my head.... — while trying to keep my mind on the quarry....


For comparison — Extract from a Dope Chart in MIL:
10y 1.8
20y -0.3
30y -0.4
37y Zero
40y 0.1
50y 0.9
60y 1.9
70y 3
80y 4.3
90y 5.6
100y 7.1





For comparison — Extract from a Dope Chart in MOA (in fractions and in decimals):

10y 6¾ 6.75
20y -¾ -0.75
30y -1 -1
37y Zero Zero
40y ¾ 0.75
50y 3¼ 3.25
60y 6½ 6.5
70y 10¼ 10.25
80y 14¼ 14.25
90y 18¾ 18.75
100y 23¾ 23.75







(3) For the MOA system, my ballistic calculator does not give me fractions, but exact decimals that are not rounded to the next quarter. Therefore, in the heat of the moment I will have to convert 3.73 to 3½, and 12.78 to 12¾. Not cool.  





(4) In the MOA system, to know exactly how many total clicks I need to dial my turret I must calculate it, e.g.:

A turret setting of 6¾ MOA equal 27 clicks (= 6 full MOA x 4 clicks + 3 quarters).

Compare that to a MIL turret: 2.7 MIL equal 27 clicks. Metric. ➔ Simple. ➔ What else could it be?!  







I know the MOA vs. MIL decision for many is simply a matter of tradition and what you're used to.... Nobody obligates you to change.  

I bought my first scope in utter ignorance of most of it's features (I bought: wire reticle; MOA/MIL mismatch, too high magnification, no SF, too little elevation adjustment ➔ ).

Thanks to the forums the second scope I bought in full knowledge of the significance of its features. Because I want the best features for my money, and for that I'm willing to get used to something different than my tradition.




Matthias