Milrad or MOA

Hey everyone I’m looking to get a new scope for my new delta wolf. I am looking at the Athlon Midas tac 6-24x50 for benchrest and if my wish comes true EBR 2023. So for many years I’ve been shooting with no thought of mil vs moa and now as i age ( a little too fast) I’m actually putting some thought into my choices. What do most shooters use Mil or Moa both for field target and benchrest? Also if anyone has an opinion on the Midas Tac based on real world experience I would appreciate hearing from you. I currently run the 4-16 Midas Tac on my fx wildcat mklll.
 
I own the Midas Tac 6x24 in Mil.

As you already own the Midas Tac in 4x16, you know how nice the glass is.

I will tell you that I use my 6x24 at 24 all the time for target shooting, and the image stays very sharp at 24x - no noticeable degradation of image quality.

As for the Mil vs. MOA debate, I’ll stay out of that - its like debating religion with some folks, lol. All my scopes are Mil - I think the consistency helps.

I think you will love the Midas Tac in 6x24 - good luck.
 
I'm too old to convert to Mil, so I use only MOA. For BR, it makes no difference, as you're shooting at a known distance. I always used a simple fine CH, and would probably stick with it if I got back into BR. I know that some folks use dots for windage holds. I was never good enough to have a preference. If I had a strong wind, I would hold into it as I guessed might be about right. I was usually wrong, but I don't think that MOA or Mil dots would have improved my results. As Mr. Crockett said, good old Kentucky windage.
 
Mil vs moa is a personal preference. In my opinion, don’t overthink it unless you’re trying to shoot for extreme distances. Get a good scope and reticle that you like.

More importantly had you thought of a FFP vs SFP scope?
Thank you everyone for your thoughts, I have both FFP and SFP scopes and I believe FFP is going to get the call. Cameraland has the Midas Tac on sale till the 31st so I’m going to have to make a decision soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jnine
Which looks better to you same everything except scope
B45A88CB-A269-4108-8B8A-760D8E9E6571.jpeg


BD1AD940-1A27-4135-9AF5-AFDBFE62802C.jpeg
 
I've got both the MOA and MIL versions of FFP and SFP scope. I found that it does not matter which you use so long as you are using "dope chart" or an app like Strelok Pro to know your holdovers or click amounts for the targets. (Also, the turret mark values have got to match the reticle hash marks; with correct tracking). If the chart says hold or click 1.5 then it is still 1.5, so long as you are looking at the correct chart. ;-)

The only thing that gets "confusing" is if you are using the scope's reticle and hash marks for a range finding device with a known target size. Then you need to use the correct formula to convert the range to create the holdover, be it mil or moa. But most airgunners do not do this extra arithmetic work. Instead, the folks doing Field Target competition use the carefully marked parallax adjustment dial/wheel to bring the image into sharp focus to know the range and shoot the holdover using the wheel's dope chart or dial the turrets accordingly.
 
Hey everyone I’m looking to get a new scope for my new delta wolf. I am looking at the Athlon Midas tac 6-24x50 for benchrest and if my wish comes true EBR 2023. So for many years I’ve been shooting with no thought of mil vs moa and now as i age ( a little too fast) I’m actually putting some thought into my choices. What do most shooters use Mil or Moa both for field target and benchrest? Also if anyone has an opinion on the Midas Tac based on real world experience I would appreciate hearing from you. I currently run the 4-16 Midas Tac on my fx wildcat mklll.

It is a matter of personal choice for me. I work with ether fine. I just need to know which I have it all. I am not sure for me it would matter for benchrest. It is fixed range and I rarely drop off max power.
 
Which looks better to you same everything except scope
View attachment 317908

View attachment 317909
I love what you did here, but the MIL reticle is slightly different in the Midas Tac. It has a few more hash marks in the first MIL.

Totally personal preference on the MIL/MOA debate. This isn’t about others. There are several current threads now in Optics about it.

  1. How does the reticle look to you? Which one is more usable with hold offs or do you even need them? Is one too busy?
  2. For bench, most use second focal and a clean reticle, because MIL/MOA adjustments don’t really come into play much because it is set it and forget it.
  3. Are you going to use a dope table to calculate hold offs at varying distances, or will you really just be doing bench, and 1 or 2 known distances max?
  4. If you plan to shoot multiple distances, you have to decide what is easier for you to calculate or count your turrets turns. I prefer MIL because it is all in 10s, and with a dope chart, it is easier… for me…
As far as the Midas Tac, you will find the at most people that have used it really like it. I like it a lot. It is not illuminated, if that is important to you. That is also how they save $$ on it.
 
It comes down to personal preference and what reticle you're comfortable with. I prefer MIL reticles and have passed up excellent deals on MOA scopes.


Nightforce ATACR MOAR™ F1


Nightforce ATACR MIL-R™ F1


Mils vs MOA Which is Better​



SNIPER 101 Part 84 - How Mil-Dots are Used for Ranging Targets​

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MikeAndrews