Visit the SWFA.com site to check out our current specials. |
MOA/MOA or MIL/MIL |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: December/20/2010 at 19:39 |
|
In another thread, the Jons (JonoMT and Jon A) alleviated some fears I had about the upcoming Vortex Viper PST's FFP reticle being a bit to thin at low power for low light hunting situations.
Now I have this question: For hunting and long range target shooting, would the MIL/MIL system or MOA/MOA system be more beneficial. I will typically be dialing for elevation and holding for wind. Any experience and/or preference out there? Thanks, |
||
-Matt
|
||
hotspot
Optics GrassHopper Joined: December/26/2008 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
hi i am in boat haha! help!! haha!
|
||
BeltFed
Optics Retard Joined: February/12/2008 Location: Ky Status: Offline Points: 22287 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Good question.
I think there was a discussion about this a couple years ago. Just can't remember if it was in either Rifle Scopes, Tactical, or Target.
I guess it would depend on what you are used to, prefer, or can find.
|
||
Life's concerns should be about the 120lb pack your trying to get to the top of the mountain, and not the rock in your boot.
|
||
Kickboxer
MODERATOR Moderator Joined: February/13/2008 Status: Offline Points: 23679 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I thought about this a bit. I really don't care as long as reticle and knob clicks are matched and consistent. The math is a little more difficult with mismatched reticle and knob clicks, but mil-dot reticle with 1/4 MOA clicks has been my most common use... when you get used to it, it really doesn't matter. Don't misunderstand... Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA is certainly preferable to Mil/MOA. Eliminating variables reduces sources of error, reduces calculation time, makes things easier all around. Simply for "replaceability", Mil/Mil is my overall preference. But, I LIKE MOA/MOA best.
|
||
Opinion,untempered by fact,is ignorance.
There are some who do not fear death... for they are more afraid of not really living |
||
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
How would you like your dollar in change four quarters or ten dimes. HMM by the way if you have a dollar worth of change you can almost buy a coke.
I have three scopes that are Mil Mil and I like them but its not a deal killer cause the last scope I bought was a Mil Dot reticle quarter moa click Trijicon 5-20x50 with green illumination and the illumination was the deciding factor so everyone values the different aspects differently, just find what works for you and spend time with it. No matter which scope you use you are just looking for a number that corresponds to a distance so you can dial in the correction. Edited by Urimaginaryfrnd - December/20/2010 at 21:44 |
||
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I haven't had much trouble with a MIL reticle/ MOA turrets either, but it just makes plain sense to match them up. Sighting in is quick and easy, and one less column on the dope chart. I guess my precise questions are: 1. Would you prefer the slightly finer MOA adjustments or the slightly faster MIL adjustments? (especially when using the reticle to hold for wind) 2. Do the reticles look very different? Is the MIL reticle less cluttered? Does the MOA reticle take up less of the field of view? |
||
-Matt
|
||
Jon A
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/14/2008 Location: Everett, WA Status: Offline Points: 670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It doesn't make a huge difference, it's mainly a matter of preference. If you have a safe full of USO or NF MOA/MOA already (or shoot with a bunch of buddies who do) it wouldn't make much sense to buy a Mil/Mil--unless that's all the particular model of scope you wanted to buy offered (such as S&B, etc). If it's a relatively fresh start, that's another story. I like Mil/Mil better for a few reasons, but keep in mind they're only my personal preference. They aren't that big a deal, but they're why I like using Mils: 1) Click value. I don't do BR or F-Class or any other paper-type competitions (where people actually like 1/8 MOA clicks) and don't hunt varmints too often anymore, so .1 Mil (~ 1/3 MOA) I find to be "just right" for size. A good compromise between precision and speed/simplicity. I had a 1/2 MOA click scope and did find it to be a bit coarse for my tastes but I've never felt that way with .1 Mil. Also in virtually every case, a Mil scope will have more travel per revolution of the knob which I really like. 2) Simple numbers. Two digits with a simple decimal for drops (until you really get WAY out there) just gives a nicer number to work with. Say at a certain range your drop chart says 6.9. Or it could say 23.75. Or 23 + 3 or 24 - 1, etc. 6.9 is easier to say, to write in a chart, to read from a chart, to find on the dial, to measure with a reticle…. I just find the simple numbers to the tenth easier to work with. Say you range something and look up in your chart your 10 MPH wind correction for that range and it's .7 Mils, for example. You measure with your Kestral, observe foliage and mirage all the way to the target and you estimate your total average wind value to be 7 MPH. What's your hold? .49 (.5) Mils . How about 3 MPH? .21 (.2) Mils. How about 11 MPH? .77 (.8) Mils. How about 15 MPH? 1 Mil. See how that works? Now try the same for 2.5 MOA. If you're good at math, it can certainly be done, just not as quickly and easily (for me, anyway). 3) It's Universal. While there are several companies coming out with MOA reticles this year--which I do think is a good thing--for those who just can't change (for reasons real or perceived), scopes with Mil reticles outnumber those with MOA by likely hundreds to one. All the world's militaries. Even in civilian market scopes EVERYBODY makes a mildot reticle or some variation. But for many years NF and USO were the only game in town for MOA. It's even worse for spotting scopes. I got a spotter with a really nice Mil reticle several years ago. I believe at the time nobody made a spotter with an MOA reticle. Nobody. Now there are a couple but from a numbers standpoint it's a drop in the bucket. Being able to spot somebody's shots with an actual spotting scope vs. your rifle scope and being able to call corrections in actual angular measurements instead of guessing feet, inches, etc, is really, really, nice. That doesn't really matter if all your shooting is done alone. But if you go to competitions, informal shoots or anything where a bunch of random guys get together and plink at long range, the chances are much higher that people will be calling corrections in Mils either from a spotter or by using the scopes on their rifles. It's not a big thing, but it's there. If you want finer clicks, MOA has the advantage. If you actually plan on ranging things with your reticle a lot, many do find MOA/inch easier to do in their heads. I use reticles to range very little. When hunting I have a cheat sheet taped to my stock so it doesn't matter anyway. For impromptu targets a mildot master or a phone app works well. And as I said, if all your buddies have NF's with R2, R1 reticles, or similar you might not want to be the odd man out. Anyway, that should get your gears grinding. |
||
Bitterroot Bulls
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: May/07/2009 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 3416 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Thanks Jon,
I was leaning towards MILs, and I think you pushed me over the edge. Exactly the info I was looking for. |
||
-Matt
|
||
koshkin
MODERATOR Dark Lord of Optics Joined: June/15/2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
As Jon said, this is mostly a matter of personal preference. In my case, the preference is strongly toward mils. I think in metric units, so ranging with mils is easier for me: 10cm is exactly 1 mil at 100 meters. It does not get easier than that.
With MOA reticles, in order to range quickly, I have to think of the target size in inches. That is not very difficult, but a bit less natural for me. ILya
|
||
jonoMT
Optics Master Extraordinaire Joined: November/13/2008 Location: Montana Status: Offline Points: 4853 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you ever want to range using the reticle, I think mils are easier to work with because of the decimal units. I would, for example, take an 18" target, think of it as .5 yards, then multiply that times 1000 to get 500 yards (the distance if it subtended 1 mil). Then the only hard part is doing the math where you divide 500 by the number of actual mils, e.g. 1.3 = 385 yards.
I also like 1/10 mil clicks. They are, as Jon says, not too coarse, fast, and it's easier to think "4.3 mils" than 59 1/4 MOA clicks, or even 14.8 MOA. Regardless, I would definitely match the turrets. Oh yeah, one more little thing about MOA reticles: Unlike with mils (at least on a reputable scope) there is a possibility of getting a slight mismatch of MOA/IPHY, which will start to matter out at long distances. (Vortex would not do this, I'm sure). |
||
Reaction time is a factor...
|
||
Urimaginaryfrnd
MODERATOR Resident Redneck Joined: June/20/2005 Location: Iowa Status: Offline Points: 14964 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
One thing that I particularly like about the 3-9x42 SS FFP 1/10 Mil MilDot scope it that if you are thinking solely in mils - (mil dot reticle Mil based clicks) it becomes very easy to take the info you have from charts and apply it.
Rangefinding Deer 18 inches brisket to back ====
5 mil 100 yds
4 mil 124 yds
3 mil 167 yds
2.5 mil 200 yds
2 mil 248 yds
1.75 mil 285 yds
1.5 mil 333 yds
1.25mil 400 yds
1 mil 499 yds
.75 mil 666 yds
http://www.jbmballistics.com/cgi-bin/jbmtraj_drift-5.1.cgi now run a chart for your bullet and caliber and select the chart to show drop in mils. Then you just dial in or use a combination of dialing in and holding over like if drop was 4.3 mil you could hold on the 4th mildot and dial in .3
|
||
"Always do the right thing, just because it is the right thing to do". Bobby Paul Doherty Texas Ranger |
||
Ernie Bishop
Optics Professional Joined: January/26/2010 Location: Gillette, WY Status: Offline Points: 765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I am a MOA guy.
Again it is just a preference. With no Mil/LEO background, MILs were never a part of my shooting. When instructing guys getting started, I have found that MOA is easier to work with generally speaking. |
||
Ernie
"If you think you are perfect, just try walking on water." |
||
308 Sav
Optics Journeyman Joined: July/18/2010 Location: Kentucky Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Until I read this I never thought the mil/mil was any big deal. That in itself makes me rethink what I will definitely be looking for in my next scope. K.I.S.S. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
|
||
Gerald Baker
|
||
sscoyote
Optics Journeyman Joined: October/05/2004 Status: Offline Points: 328 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That was a pretty insightful writeup Jon. Well said.
|
||
Steve
|
||
grimreaper21
Optics Apprentice Joined: October/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
|
||
308 Sav
Optics Journeyman Joined: July/18/2010 Location: Kentucky Status: Offline Points: 362 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I would say that he is referring to the 1 inch at 100 yds or shooters moa. 2 in at 200 yds. Since the two are so close people can relate to them even though they are not the same all you have to do is stretch it out a bit and the relationship gets farther apart. I run into it in construction with shooting grade. For some reason at first people prefer to use a grade rod in feet and inches because that is what they are familiar with, when it is much easier and less mathematical errors occur using an engineers rod in tenths of feet. When they first start to use them they are constantly trying to convert instead of just using the measuring device they have in hand. The funniest thing I think I have learned about people is that they think something is easier just because it seems more familiar to them. Fractions are never easier than decimals. Just my thoughts. |
||
Gerald Baker
|
||
Clark
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/13/2004 Location: Near Seattle Status: Offline Points: 124 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
When I was at Boeing 30 years ago, 600 engineers to the room, 6 rooms to the building, several identical buildings in a row, I used to play a game. If the engineer said he liked algebraic calculators best, I had a problem that favored reverse Polish. If he liked reverse Polish, I had a problem that favored algebraic. The handwritten cardboard chart I strap with a rubber band to my LRF1600 has 3 columns; yards, elevation in moa, and windage in moa. If I ever hunt with a scope that has the knobs is .1 mils, I will have to get out my pen and make a different chart. |
||
Jon A
Optics Journeyman Joined: March/14/2008 Location: Everett, WA Status: Offline Points: 670 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
We still use inches at Boeing, but with decimals, not fractions. BTW, there are about 1100 Engineers in the room I currently work in. Sardines....
|
||
Clark
Optics Apprentice Joined: February/13/2004 Location: Near Seattle Status: Offline Points: 124 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Jon,
I have admired your posts and the internet for 6 or 7 years. I know your type: hardworking engineer who is sincere, honest, and dedicated. Not me, I am lazy and selfish. Engineering is just another scam for me to get rich. |
||
Ernie Bishop
Optics Professional Joined: January/26/2010 Location: Gillette, WY Status: Offline Points: 765 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
GR,
I have not used Mils as often as MOA. I suggest it would be doubtful that any one person that has used one system extensively would also have the same amount of time with the other. I use Mils from time to time and I understand it. I have used it for reticle ranging too. I prefer MOA, and it is easy for me to think that way. As far as instructing people over a short period of time, it is easier for them to catch on for the reasons that 308 Sav mentioned. The majority of guys that I help teach typically, have a goal of being competent at 400-600 yards on game. |
||
Ernie
"If you think you are perfect, just try walking on water." |
||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |