I use Sterlok so it's not like I do much calculation but as an American my brain works in yards/inch not meters/centimeters.
Have any of you switched? Was it a hard transition?
Have any of you switched? Was it a hard transition?
- The AGN App is ready! Search "Airgun Nation" in your App store. To compliment this new tech we've assigned the "Threads" Feed & "Dark" Mode. To revert back click HERE.
Would you switch from MOA to Mil if you really wanted a scope?
- Thread starter KevinWood44
- Start date
its all crosshairs to me ... all i need to know is the inch drop at a fixed point where i need to nail somethin ... if its fallin off a foot at 90 you aint fast enough .. dont think that you are lol ..
Upvote 0
I think it depends solely on the user as some understand MOA or MIL easier/quicker. My brain understands MOA easier as I can relate it to time 60 minutes or seconds equals one hour or one minute, same logistics to me rather than MIL's....
Upvote 0
I was eyeing the scope tapes for some time but only last week sit down for first time to make my own. And it was a bit of nervwrecking learning curve.
Currently I have 3 scopes mounted, two SFP in MILLDot (0.1 and 0.5) and one LPVO in MOA (1/5 MOA).
I lost myself calculating what is what in Chairgun, which was recommended to me in other thread. Finally I made my scope tapes and now comfortably matching the Strelok clicks but not tested in live shooting yet.
Btw I am a metric guy, mechanical designer and my major client has a production in inches... so I am 50-50 good with numbers. But is beyond me why there any need for 3 different standards ...
The problem started when my best scope turret is a 1 click=0.5cm @ 100 meters, and the LPVO is 1 click 1/5 MIL and the third scope is 1 click 10 mm???
How to do that, here is the screenshot above??
Currently I have 3 scopes mounted, two SFP in MILLDot (0.1 and 0.5) and one LPVO in MOA (1/5 MOA).
I lost myself calculating what is what in Chairgun, which was recommended to me in other thread. Finally I made my scope tapes and now comfortably matching the Strelok clicks but not tested in live shooting yet.
Btw I am a metric guy, mechanical designer and my major client has a production in inches... so I am 50-50 good with numbers. But is beyond me why there any need for 3 different standards ...
The problem started when my best scope turret is a 1 click=0.5cm @ 100 meters, and the LPVO is 1 click 1/5 MIL and the third scope is 1 click 10 mm???
How to do that, here is the screenshot above??
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I use MOA and MILS interchangeably. MIL scope on my Atomic XR and MOA scope on my Bantam HR. At the ranges I’m using the scopes it doesn’t matter to me. They have both proven equally effective. Though I do find hold offs for wind easier to do in MILS.
Upvote 0
If 1 click is 0.5cm at 100m it is 1/20 MIL per click
If 1 click is 10mm (aka 1cm) at 100m it is 1/10 MIL per click
I've never used a 1/5 MIL scope but that's probably typical on LPVOs and red dots (mine are all 1/2 or 1 MOA adjustments). I would assume you could create a custom 1/5 profile by selecting "click calibration"
Upvote 0
I use both MIL and MOA pretty interchangeably. MOA has a slightly finer adjustment (ie; 1/4 moa vs 1/10 mil) so typically thats what I go for. If I come across a great deal on a MIL scope I buy it though. The different systems really only matter if you are using your reticle to measure/range things which your average shooter is not doing, myself included. Rangefinders are cheap and much faster than breaking out a pen and paper and doodling out some math.
Upvote 0
I use both. They are all just reference points on a reticle to me. I find my zero and don’t bother the turrets. I figure the adjustments I need to make when target shooting or if I miss in the field and can see where the missed shot hit and that’s pretty much it. If the adjustments result in a kill shot then mission accomplished. I barely have time to range a lot of my shots and don’t feel that I have time to calculate much of anything else on fidgety moving targets that I sometimes track by moving myself.
Upvote 0
I didn't care neither what scope I was using because at the bench I had my tablet and Strelok with me all the time.
But decided printing a scope turret tape for my Leshiy2 only to simplify my luggage. I hope I don't need a tablet+radar+batteries+paper and a pen.
Finally I can shoot a full silhouette range without looking up how many clicks I need for jumps in between 20-40-60-70-80-100, also for short ranges 10-20.
But decided printing a scope turret tape for my Leshiy2 only to simplify my luggage. I hope I don't need a tablet+radar+batteries+paper and a pen.
Finally I can shoot a full silhouette range without looking up how many clicks I need for jumps in between 20-40-60-70-80-100, also for short ranges 10-20.
Upvote 0
Well, for a dope chart, or remembering my dope, it seems easier to remember a number in the decimal system than a system that uses fractions.....
(And easier to write it down, too. Certainly less numbers.)
MOA = MIL
1 ¼ = 0.4
1 ¾ = 0.5
2 ½ = 0.7
6 ¾ = 2.0
Matthias
(And easier to write it down, too. Certainly less numbers.)
MOA = MIL
1 ¼ = 0.4
1 ¾ = 0.5
2 ½ = 0.7
6 ¾ = 2.0
Matthias
Upvote 0
The only reason to pick one over the other is if you do competition and everyone used mil or moa so you could communicate easier. If you are not shooting with people that requires you to communicate in moa or mil choose which ever you like.
Upvote 0
I have scopes that use both, and I don't think I even notice when I go from one to the other.
Upvote 0
I mean it's not but nobody really wants to think in factors of 0.36" increments at airgun ranges. Using the metric system with a MIL scope just works better for "off the top of your head" math.
Upvote 0
It is as you stated yourself, using Strelok it really doesn't matter. Usually the Mil reticles are a little less cluttered and if you are an actual clicker then that matters even less. I am finding my way back to SFP too, since Strelok is doing the math, I can find the magnification needed to put the target on a hash mark, since I don't click, -very handy.
Upvote 0
Yes, you are correct it is easier to use 18.288mm for 1/5 of a mil or 9.144mm for 1/10 of a mil at 100 yards.
Upvote 0