Would you switch from MOA to Mil if you really wanted a scope?

[LRShooter6.5]

I prefer mil to moa. Personal preference. Mil is based in 10’s so you don’t need to deal with fractions. But, if that’s what you’re used to and like, stick with it

 

[JungleShooter]

I use MIL and MOA. I would say that it depends on how you use it.

I do like finer clicks on MOA scopes at 1/8 for precision shooting, but I dislike counting clicks for MOA when they are in multiples of 4 or 8 and the individual clicks between are actually different than the math equivalent. (Risks more mistakes). If your turret is labeled for your distanced though, it wouldn’t matter what you use.

And it depends on how you are deciding how to click. Let’s assume I’m using Strelok or something…

To hopefully make sense of that. If I have to click up 34 clicks, MIL is slightly easier with 10 clicks per, so it is just go from 0-3 and 4 more clicks. With MOA, you have to do math… 8 clicks per, so I have to go 0-4 and then 2 more clicks. Not huge, but risks a math error.

Or worse, need 3.4 MOA… you have to do math to figure out what .4 MOA is. If 3.4 MIL, you know it is 3 MIL plus 4 clicks. Again no misread, miscalc, or misthinking.

Now this was a well-reasoned argument — not just an opinion.

Matthias

 

[Airgun-hobbyist]

I have done exactly what you are asking because a MIL scope "clicked all the boxes" I wanted in a particular scope, (except the MOA reticle and turrets).

I look at it like this, if both versions of the click value are used in a FFP scope then no calculated formula or conversion math is really involved in sighting or dialing into a target because the sight picture and hash marks give the click value (to walk in shots to the bullseye). This obviously won't necessarily apply to cold bore shots of unknown conditions and yardages.

 

[BobW]

I’ve gotten so used to MOA I don’t think I would change.

 

[SDellinger]

What difference does it make. Hold where Strelok says or dial.

 

[Hearkens]

I’ve dumped virtually all my moa for mrad. Much simple for me.

 

[SDellinger]

How is mrad simpler? How do you use your reticle? Just wondering.

 

[Sqwirl57]

Its all base 10 so doing math on the fly is much simpler in your head IF you use the metric system. As far as "how do you use your reticle" is concerned do a quick search on Google and YouTube for "ranging with a scope reticle" for answers there. There's a bit to it but is pretty easy to learn enough to start practicing on your own. Once you get the basics down you'll be good to go.

 

[beerthief]

just got my first Mrad scope . reading with care here

 

[SDellinger]

Who uses a reticle to range a pigeon with at 70 yards?

 

[Sqwirl57]

Who uses a reticle to range a pigeon with at 70 yards?

I think most people laser it but it's still a darn good skill to have at the ready

 

[Ryden]

My understanding is that MOA and MIL are both angular measurements. Essentially slices of a circle...One milradian is 1/1,000 of a circle and one Minute of Angle is 1/21,600 of a circle

Not quite, there are 2×Pi radians in a unit circle so 1 milliradian equals1/6283.185.... of a circle.

But all this comes down to personal preference, I'm solidly metric so if I know distance I know windage if I use mrad (and vice versa of course) and it becomes very easy for me. MoA would be much more complicated since I would have to convert everything.
And don't mix! Reticle and turrets the same or your brain will probably explode.

Someone poked fun at holding off 18,288 mm at hundred yards. Why?
It's two clicks, doesn't matter if it's 100y or 100 m, it will still be two clicks with 1/10 turrets.

How many of us really shoot better than one click on the scope?

 

[EPG]

How many of us really shoot better than one click on the scope?

That sums it up quite nicely for me, lol - great statement.

I have all Mil scopes - all FFP except one fixed focal length. I like to think in base 10, so I picked Mil for my 1st scope and have stayed with it - as consistency always helps in shooting.

 

[rcarlisle]

I can see for long range precision shooting, MOA might be more desirable as you get somewhat finer adjustment per click at 1/4 MOA (.25 inches at 100 yd) vs MIL at 1/10 MIL per click (.36 inches at 100 yd). That's a difference of .11 inches per click at 100 yards, if my math is right. However, the coarser adjustment in MIL also means you can dial more elevation with fewer clicks. Inside of 100 yards, it hardly seems to matter to me.
If I were going to shoot beyond 100 yards at small targets with an airgun for competition, I think I'd want a scope with 1/4 MOA adjustments. I currently use MIL scopes because I am used to it and I don't think it matters at the ranges I typically shoot. But I would have no problem changing if I wanted a particular scope or if I wanted to accomplish a particular task.

 

[steve123]

I started with moa like most in the USA but about 15 years ago I switched over to mils with no plans to go back. Many of my scopes are .2 mil reticles, .1 mil clicks, 10 mil per rev, CCW turrets, in FFP scopes, if I can at all get away with it.

Though I wouldn't mind a mil scope in SFP for BR with .05 mil clicks.

I guess I enjoy shooting long range the most so I'm often over the first revolution of the turret. 20 mils/2 revs, 30 mils/3 revs, easy. That's a lot of elevation crammed into one rev! Basically 36" of travel at 100Y for 10 mils dialed on vs 26.175" for 25 moa dialed on at the same distance. This difference compounds with each rev.

Then if using a reticle with .2 mil hashes you can split the difference between the hashes in half and that's in 1 clicks worth of hold.

 

[Franklink]

I started with moa like most in the USA but about 15 years ago I switched over to mils with no plans to go back. Many of my scopes are .2 mil reticles, .1 mil clicks, 10 mil per rev, CCW turrets, in FFP scopes, if I can at all get away with it.

Though I wouldn't mind a mil scope in SFP for BR with .05 mil clicks.

I guess I enjoy shooting long range the most so I'm often over the first revolution of the turret. 20 mils/2 revs, 30 mils/3 revs, easy. That's a lot of elevation crammed into one rev! Basically 36" of travel at 100Y for 10 mils dialed on vs 26.175" for 25 moa dialed on at the same distance. This difference compounds with each rev.

Then if using a reticle with .2 mil hashes you can split the difference between the hashes in half and that's in 1 clicks worth of hold.

I'm with ya Steve, 1/10 mil/click scopes for me please.

I've used the standard 1/4 moa/click and the X50 on the USFT has 1/8 moa/click, but I MUCH prefer 1/10th mil click scopes.

 

[Ryden]

I bought a secondhand Delta Stryker 5-50 that has .05 MIL turrets. That's totally wasted on an air rifle.
I don't think I'll like it for long range either as the targets are rarely that small.

 

[SDellinger]

Don't most people hold on the reticle where Strelok says or dial to where Strelok says? Explain to me why all the concern about mil and moa. Just as easy to hold or dial for either.

 

[Firewalker]

Just dont care in the slightest, I dope all my guns with each scope so its still hitting at distance.

 

[Sqwirl57]

Don't most people hold on the reticle where Strelok says or dial to where Strelok says? Explain to me why all the concern about mil and moa. Just as easy to hold or dial for either.

Thats exactly what most people do. The marks in the reticle are basically just holdover points. Some, probably very few, actually measure and range using their reticle. Some people probably see MIL and their mind automatically jumps to MILITARY and their logical conclusion is that that one is better. The fact of the matter is that for most people, myself included, it doesn't matter. Find a reticle you like and go for it. Your rangefinder will do the hard part for you.