#12 Annoying Debate Topic for fun: MOA vs. MIL --my take

[Timberline001]

That's because you must be the ultimate hunter. Over and out. lol.

Not sure what you meant by that?

 

[repins05]

This particular situation - my buddy's shot appeared to be good vertically (dead on pretty much). Told him that and then I called out how many feet he was ahead of it (which was about two feet). I let my friend try to figure out the rest as the bear walked off.

Same scenario when my group shoots rock chucks and rats. Will call out miss vertically and horizontally based on feet since we are all using MOA. Obviously, if you don't see your shot, you are only as good as your spotter at that point. I am usually able to see my shot...but not always. There are a few friends that I would not use or count on as a spotter because they have poor judgement in measuring by eye. Same friends that if their GPS goes down I am going to have to call search and rescue.

Swaro rangę binos (no reticle).

 

[wind gypsy]

Honest inquiry here:
How many people spot for their hunting partner with a reticle optic? It’s always through the binos or spotter, rarely if ever with an etched reticle.
I’ve spent plenty of range time where everyone is on the same system with the same ruler in their face and it works, but that isn’t reality in the field hunting.
if you’re looking thru your bino's or spotter, how are you calling corrections to the shooter if they don’t see their miss?

I don't get into many such situations but it likely wouldn't be in angular measurements.

 

[ID_Matt]

This particular situation - my buddy's shot appeared to be good vertically (dead on pretty much). Told him that and then I called out how many feet he was ahead of it (which was about two feet). I let my friend try to figure out the rest as the bear walked off.

Same scenario when my group shoots rock chucks and rats. Will call out miss vertically and horizontally based on feet since we are all using MOA. Obviously, if you don't see your shot, you are only as good as your spotter at that point. I am usually able to see my shot...but not always. There are a few friends that I would not use or count on as a spotter because they have poor judgement in measuring by eye. Same friends that if their GPS goes down I am going to have to call search and rescue.

Swaro rangę binos (no reticle).

Regardless, MIL or MOA, why the need to try and convert anything to a linear measurement when there is a ruler in your scope?

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Regardless, MIL or MOA, why the need to try and convert anything to a linear measurement when there is a ruler in your scope?

Same point, regardless of units, what else can a spotter say to a shooter other than approximate feet/inches through binoculars? I’m sure as hell not gonna convert it to angular, but I’d be happy to hear “1 foot in front of the chest”, then use that as a reference on the reticle to offset from where I was and send again.

(If you meant to say angular then we’re on the same page already)

 

[ID_Matt]

Same point, regardless of units, what else can a spotter say to a shooter other than approximate feet/inches through binoculars? I’m sure as hell not gonna convert it to angular, but I’d be happy to hear “1 foot in front of the chest”, then use that as a reference on the reticle to offset from where I was and send again.

(If you meant to say angular then we’re on the same page already)

I think we are on the same page. Someone says you hit a foot in front of his chest, you measure in your scope how far that was from your aim point, move your point of aim based on that and shoot. No need to do any sort of conversion of inches/feet to mils/moa.

 

[repins05]

I think we are on the same page. Someone says you hit a foot in front of his chest, you measure in your scope how far that was from your aim point, move your point of aim based on that and shoot. No need to do any sort of conversion of inches/feet to mils/moa.

Totally agree.

He was shooting just past seven hundred yards and using a turret (no measurable wind with the kestrel). I would have adjusted my turret since I am calculating in moa lol......but if I couldn't figure out the conversion (or for that matter even if I had to think about it) I would have just moved my crosshairs back from the vitals accordingly. His automatic response (I think) was to adjust his turret. He was pretty upset with his first shot and it caused him to fumble around more. He probably ran it in his calculator at least 3 times.

In the meantime I watched the bear through my binos telling him it's starting to walk away. The bear was foraging and living life like there wasn't a bullet a moment ago that was trying to kill him. I bet it went another 40 yards plus before he disappeared into some brush. Yardage never changed much either with the path he took.

Back at camp he did the typical my scope must be off and shot it at 100 yards. It was pretty much right on. Later that night he started doing the ballistic calculations out loud and trying to figure out what happened while we were all standing around the fire drinking beer. To his credit, after the season was over, he decided he needed to scale back and not shoot that far.

 

[eric1115]

I switched from MOA to MRAD pretty recently (after last hunting season), and here's my takeaway so far...

1.7 mil at 450 is easier to remember than 5.75 MOA. I have AB ballistic solver in my RF, but if I'm on a different profile it's way easier to shoot with just a range and not a solution. I have not even really worked on quick drop process very much yet, but I can do it in my head if I have a little bit of time.

Wind is way way easier and faster. I don't even reference the wind in my solver for most shots anymore since gun number is so easy.

Making corrections with others using a spotter/binos is no factor. Spotter is estimating a measurement in inches, and shooter is not converting that to angular whether using MOA or MRAD. Shooter estimates what looks like that number of inches and sends next round regardless of reticle.

Two challenges that I've found are as follows: shooter and spotter both have reticles, one MOA and one MRAD. Spotter has fairly precise correction to give, shooter can't utilize it effectively. Rare, but not never. Falls back to offering an estimated linear correction same as if spotter has no reticle. Obviously this challenge cuts both ways, and sticking with MOA only eliminates it if you never shoot with mil guys. If it's a mix you're going to be speaking different languages at some point regardless.

Second, milling a target size is still less intuitive to me with MRAD than with MOA. I've found shooting rocks to be a little rougher determining target size, though I've simply adjusted my frame of reference to largely make this irrelevant. A .5 mil target is approx 1.5 MOA and is a good "small-ish" rock to try to hit. The math is easy enough from there if I care to do it... At 600 yards, a .5 mil rock is going to be 10" give or take.

Zeroing is a tiny bit less intuitive as well since the targets I use have 1" grids, but that is such a minor inconvenience that I consider it to be no factor in the decision process. Center of group is easier to determine on paper rather than through the optic for me, so I have to do a little math. ⅓ of an inch per click, and round up since it's actually .36 is easy enough and close enough to get me there just as fast as .25" per click.

At this point, my only regret in the switch is not doing it sooner. The benefits have far outweighed the challenges for me.

 

[justin davis]

I have moa scopes. That is all I’ve ever tried. I prefer 2 focal and I like to range and dial to the exact yardage. I don’t do holdovers. I think moa makes sense to me because of years of archery thinking and shooting in yards. I always make a tape out of white electrical tape for my turret. I put the yardage on there. So it’s easy just to range and dial to the exact yardage.

 

[wind gypsy]

I have moa scopes. That is all I’ve ever tried. I prefer 2 focal and I like to range and dial to the exact yardage. I don’t do holdovers. I think moa makes sense to me because of years of archery thinking and shooting in yards. I always make a tape out of white electrical tape for my turret. I put the yardage on there. So it’s easy just to range and dial to the exact yardage.

Most Mil guys in the US shoot in yards as well. Doesn't matter which you use for target distance.

 

[justin davis]

Most Mil guys in the US shoot in yards as well. Doesn't matter which you use for target distance.

Yea I guess the 1 inch at 100 yards approximately makes sense in my brain for using moa. Everton says mils are better but I’ve never used them

 

[ElPollo]

Yea I guess the 1 inch at 100 yards approximately makes sense in my brain for using moa. Everton says mils are better but I’ve never used them

The funny part is that the 1” at 100 is only useful for most folks when sighting in at a fixed distance. For everything else Mils using quick drop and your wind number completely stomps using MOA for speed. You can actually calculate your drop and drift from 300-600 yards/meters in your head in 2 seconds without a ballistic solver. If you haven’t tried these, do a search on here for Form’s posts on the topic or listen to this podcast.

 

[justin davis]

The funny part is that the 1” at 100 is only useful for most folks when sighting in at a fixed distance. For everything else Mils using quick drop and your wind number completely stomps using MOA for speed. You can actually calculate your drop and drift from 300-600 yards/meters in your head in 2 seconds without a ballistic solver. If you haven’t tried these, do a search on here for Form’s posts on the topic or listen to this podcast.

Yea makes sense. I don’t shoot competitions. Just hunting. But I’ve heard mils are faster. That is intriguing

So a guy has to know the wind speed right? So if I take time to know the mph of wind. I have time To know what moa have to hold
For.

Or is mils gonna be faster in that regard?

 

[ElPollo]

Yea makes sense. I don’t shoot competitions. Just hunting. But I’ve heard mils are faster. That is intriguing

So a guy has to know the wind speed right? So if I take time to know the mph of wind. I have time To know what moa have to hold
For.

Or is mils gonna be faster in that regard?

If you know your distance and wind speed, you can do it in 2 seconds for most guns. You also have to know your density altitude based on temp and elevation.

A average gun (6.5cm, 270, etc. with 0.4 BC bullets) will have a correction factor on -2 off the hundred for drop and add the 10s on the other side of the decimal. So at 580 yards the drop will be roughly 3.8 Mils. For guns that are faster or slower, you may have to apply an additional correction.

For my 18” 223 and primary load, all I have to remember is -2+2 for my drops. If my distance is 430, the drop is the hundreds minus 2 and add 2 to the 10s on the decimal = 2.5 Mils. That works for 250-600 yards at my normal altitude and temp. As altitude and temp change or range change, my correction factor may change a bit in either direction.

For wind, figure out the wind speed that pushes your bullet 0.1 mil per hundred yards. Generally this is equivalent to 10 times the BC of your bullet, but you need to verify for your conditions. The bullet I am using drifts about 0.1 Mils per hundred yards from a 4 mph full value crosswind from 100-600 yards. 2 mph is half that base drift number. 6 mph is 1.5 times that base number. A 16 mph quartering wind is twice my base number.

So I can basically get a call within 0.1 mils without a ballistic solver in my head faster than you can pull out your phone. This isn’t my creation. It came from that podcast and Form’s posts. But it works for most guns and loads. I do find the corrections on high speed magnums to get a bit more challenging, but it’s still way faster than MOA.

Knowing your distance is easy with modern rangefinders and you can even use a Mil reticle to estimate distance. Wind speed takes practice and paying attention to your terrain. You can get a wind meter to measure wind speed where you are, but it might be totally different between you and the target based on your terrain.

 

[justin davis]

If you know your distance and wind speed, you can do it in 2 seconds for most guns. You also have to know your density altitude based on temp and elevation.

A average gun (6.5cm, 270, etc. with 0.4 BC bullets) will have a correction factor on -2 off the hundred for drop and add the 10s on the other side of the decimal. So at 580 yards the drop will be roughly 3.8 Mils. For guns that are faster or slower, you may have to apply an additional correction.

For my 18” 223 and primary load, all I have to remember is -2+2 for my drops. If my distance is 430, the drop is the hundreds minus 2 and add 2 to the 10s on the decimal = 2.5 Mils. That works for 250-600 yards at my normal altitude and temp. As altitude and temp change or range change, my correction factor may change a bit in either direction.

For wind, figure out the wind speed that pushes your bullet 0.1 mil per hundred yards. Generally this is equivalent to 10 times the BC of your bullet, but you need to verify for your conditions. The bullet I am using drifts about 0.1 Mils per hundred yards from a 4 mph full value crosswind from 100-600 yards. 2 mph is half that base drift number. 6 mph is 1.5 times that base number. A 16 mph quartering wind is twice my base number.

So I can basically get a call within 0.1 mils without a ballistic solver in my head faster than you can pull out your phone. This isn’t my creation. It came from that podcast and Form’s posts. But it works for most guns and loads. I do find the corrections on high speed magnums to get a bit more challenging, but it’s still way faster than MOA.

Knowing your distance is easy with modern rangefinders and you can even use a Mil reticle to estimate distance. Wind speed takes practice and paying attention to your terrain. You can get a wind meter to measure wind speed where you are, but it might be totally different between you and the target based on your terrain.

Yea gotcha. As it is now I range my target and dial my elevation to the range. I hold for windage. I have a wind meter to know wind and dial moa. But if I can do it faster with mils. Than maybe I need to explore that.

 

[Muleface]

It's nice to have MIL for when you're traveling between countries that use Imperial or SI units. 1/1000 of a mile here, 1/1000 of a kilometer there, same easy angular math-in-head. MOA requires the additional step of relating the not-decimal scale to whatever linear unit you're using, as you switch units.

Also when you change your thinking from 308 Win to 7.62x51mm, no problem! MIL doesn't even mind, whereas MOA gets uppity around millimeters.

 

[mxgsfmdpx]

Myself included, and with multiple others... Anyone I know personally who has switched to MILs has, and never will, go back to MOA unless forced to with using somebody else's gun.

Are there any folks who learned on MIL and switched to MOA and now use exclusively and preferably use MOA? If so, why?

 

[Bluefish]

It's nice to have MIL for when you're traveling between countries that use Imperial or SI units. 1/1000 of a mile here, 1/1000 of a kilometer there, same easy angular math-in-head. MOA requires the additional step of relating the not-decimal scale to whatever linear unit you're using, as you switch units.

Also when you change your thinking from 308 Win to 7.62x51mm, no problem! MIL doesn't even mind, whereas MOA gets uppity around millimeters.

Both moa and mil are angular measurements, so why do you have to convert to linear? Moa can be converted to linear as it’s close enough to 1” per 100 yards, but it’s still an angle. Is it just that mil are better sized numbers?

 

[Muleface]

Both moa and mil are angular measurements, so why do you have to convert to linear? Moa can be converted to linear as it’s close enough to 1” per 100 yards, but it’s still an angle. Is it just that mil are better sized numbers?

You’re totally right.

tl;dr — if factoring by 10 is easier than by 360, yes the quantities are more usable

We get MOA from arcminute. Arcminute as a unit and concept is very old and has basis in angular velocity of heavenly bodies. This makes it technically applicable to ballistics stuff, but the factor is arbitrary for our use. If the concern is clicks on an adjustment knob for angular change, then any arbitrary unit can be learned. But practical use of reticles with angle subtensions to estimate range or width is probably why OP put “annoying” in the title, and why others can do calculations with MILs very quickly.

Conceptually, MOA is based on a full rotation, and MIL is based on range to target. Radians are about radius, not circumference. So RADs are just as technically applicable to ballistics stuff, but they don’t involve the arbitrary factor and they’re more intuitive to use.

Converting angle to either range or target width/height requires that the other length be known. If you’re doing yards and inches because you’r ranging in one and measuring width in the other, then there is an additional factor involved in the calculation — 36 or its inverse. Totally learnable, and a simple arithmetic way to get a desired quantity. I don’t know about you, but I am capable of messing that up if I’m in a hurry (or even slowly, honestly).

If you use MILs then you don’t have to do that additional factoring unless you want to. Because decimal conversions come naturally to ten-fingered animals, you can use whatever unit you want without thinking much about it. Carlengths, boatlengths, lane width, legal bull antlers outside measurement. You don’t need to convert these into something familiar with MIL. You just know that one MIL subtends one of whatever one of those units is, at 1000 units distance. Or 1/10 of such a unit at 100 units distance. So a car that measures 2 MILs is 500 carlengths away. Or a bull ranged at 260 yards that measures 5 MILs is 1.3 yards wide. The conversion of unfamiliar to familiar units (e.g. 1.3 yards to 46.8 inches, or carlengths to whatever) can happen after you do this calculation that is irrespective of units, and that means you have one fewer step at which rounding or other error occurs. That might matter more to you if bulls become legal at 50 inches, and less if you have time to do as many precise calculations as you need to using your phone.

You’re also right that the decimal nature of MILs makes them real easy to use along with metric units. But if you don’t want to estimate range in meters or size in whatevermeters, then yards and milliyards or centiyards aren’t so bad. IMHO it’s still better than MOA in a hurry, because one MOA subtends 1.047” at 100 yards, and that’s 4.7% error from the start. It’s also not easy to use for metric units that aren’t adequately approximated by a yard. Like if you’re trying to estimate some width at a kilometer, it’s really easy with MILs and requires multiple potential-rounding-error steps with MOA. Factoring by 10 goes really easy on rounding error.

 

[Muleface]

IMHO it’s still better than MOA in a hurry, because one MOA subtends 1.047” at 100 yards, and that’s 4.7% error from the start.

I can’t believe how tedious this person is.

But also, one time I checked the “MILRAD” reticle on a scope. I put it on a tripod and confirmed target range and width precisely. This was a fixed-magnification scope so there was no user error in setting the magnification for “MILs” on a SFP unit. The MILs on the reticle were off by about 10% (an ironic error).

So, I bet there are people out there who have decided between MOA and MIL empirically based on what works well, and because some reticles are not as stated, that can cause one thing to work better than the other for reasons other than whether MOA or MIL is practically better. We encounter this kind of scope error when we do the “box test” for adjustment precision and repeatability on a scope (error for that would be about the knobs), but I assume confirming reticle subtensions isn’t common. Wasn’t for me anyway.