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

[hereinaz]

Its a well worn debate... and here is my take.

In the world of precision shooting, deciding between the Mil (milliradian) and MOA (minute of angle) measurement systems is akin to choosing between centimeters and inches in carpentry. Furniture gets built with both of them, and in the end it only matters if the furniture is well made. But, for your sanity it can matter if you try to use centimeters in the US and everyone talks inches...

Best FOR YOU is relative. I personally think that MIL has more strengths and benefits than MOA, but I wouldn't say that means it is "better" for you.

Both Mil and MOA are widely used by shooters and I'll delve into the Mil vs. MOA debate, clarify the differences I think are important, and hopefully help you make an informed decision about which system best suits your shooting needs and situation. This isn't an exhaustive list of the pros/cons of MIL vs. MOA, but will get you an idea of the most important things that I would suggest you consider. Others can add to the list.

Understanding Mil and MOA
At their core, MIL and MOA serve the same purpose: they measure the angle between your scope and the barrel. The adjustment is what allows you to make precise adjustments to your point of aim up/down left/right. Let's take a closer look at each:
1. MIL (Milliradian):

• MIL employs a base-ten metric system, simplifying the handling of fractions and calculations. Think of how easily we can count to 100 by ones (1, 2, 3, 4...) or tens (10, 20, 30, 40...). And, how easy it is to add and subtract, like 1.5 - .4 or 2.2 + .7.
• Mathematically, the MIL system divides a circle into radians and smaller units called Milliradians, where we get the term "MIL."
• MIL scope adjustments are typically made in 0.1 Mil increments.

2. MOA (Minute of Angle):

• MOA is based on a 360-degree circle, with each degree divided into 60 minutes of angle. These are razor thin angles.
• MOA scope adjustments are often made in 1/4 MOA (or 0.25 MOA) increments. One MOA roughly translating to 1 inch at 100 yards.
• Dealing in MOA requires you to add and subtract in "quarter," "half," and "three quarter" fractions, which takes a little more concentration and practice to have the same speed as most people have with MIL and the base ten math.

The Practical Differences
While both systems excel in precision shooting, practical distinctions are worth considering:
1. Ease of Use:

• MIL's base-ten system simplifies fractional adjustments and calculations, which can be advantageous for swift field adjustments. The math is easy, no complex fractions. Its based off counting to ten.
• If you already know your scope and rifle in MOA, then switching can cause you to lose all of that intuitive knowledge. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
• Using MIL allows me to find my "wind number" for my rifles, and then use that number for adjustment. My two primary hunting rifles are about "6 mph guns" depending on environmentals, meaning for a full value wind, I adjust 0.1 MIL for every 6 mph, then I multiply by the yardage. So, a 12 MPH wind at a 300 yard target is 0.2 x 3(00) = 0.6 MIL adjustment.
• Ballistic calculators and apps on rangefinders are the great equalizer, because its a mini computer that handles calculations, regardless of whether they use Mil or MOA. These tools streamline factors like bullet drop, windage, and range estimation, mitigating the significance of the measurement system. Just learn how to use it and understand the limitations of technology.

2. Common Usage:

• In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift towards MIL within the shooting community. Many professionals, military snipers, and competitive shooters prefer MIL. Consequently, a wealth of available information, including reticle designs and ballistic data, is now in MIL.
• If you want to shoot competitively in many field type matches that can really benefit shooting skills for hunters, the commonly referenced is NRL Hunter, the vast majority of shooters employ MIL and talk in MIL. But, if you will be welcome with an MOA scope, of course it doesn't matter.
• MOA still has a massive presence in the market and out in the field. If you hunt and shoot with others that shoot MOA, that's a good reason to stick with it rather than be the oddball and shoot MIL.

3. Personal Preference:

• Ultimately, the choice between Mil and MOA should boil down to personal preference, familiarity, and . If the majority of your shooting community employs MOA, it may be practical for you to do the same. The crucial factor is selecting the system that feels most comfortable and usable for you.
• You can break down my friends into sorts of MIL and MOA groups, and I only have one exception I can think of a friend that only hunts and adopted MIL because that is what he learned when using my rifle the first hunting season and he liked it.
  • Friends who only hunt, and have hunted long before the MIL/MOA debate became a thing, they shoot MOA and I never try to convince them to change. They have asked, and I ask why. None have given me a good enough reason to sell their scopes and relearn a system.
  • Friends who hunt and have gotten into the matches, they all transitioned from MOA to MIL, because of the common language and speed benefits in a competition setting dealing with adjustments.

Conclusion: Choose What Works for YOU, Then WORK What You Chose.
In the Mil vs. MOA debate, the paramount consideration is selecting the system that aligns with your shooting community's practices so you can use the same language. For newcomers, experimenting with both systems may be beneficial in determining which one resonates better.

Remember, proficiency with your chosen system, coupled with consistent practice is what matters. Be it Mil or MOA, the key is to thoroughly understand and master the system, comprehend its relation to your scope adjustments, and practice diligently to become a skilled and precise shooter.

 

[Bluefish]

Well said. I buddy recently came up with why to use mil vs moa, scopes are done in mil, so you can read the mil directly. I missed by this much angle, so adjust by that angle. since a mil is bigger, it’s easier to put hatch marks on a reticle and being base 10 quicker to divide out. You can do the same thing with a moa reticle, miss by this much moa, adjust by the same amount. I have not done it, but I bet 1 moa increments on a scope are almost unreadable. So the larger mil has a slight advantage In clarity.
where moa shines is short distance where it’s easy to convert distance to angle. Ie at 100 yards, 1” is 1 moa, 3” is 3 moa. Yet 1 mil is 3.6”, so a 1” is about .3 mil. most shorter range hunters don’t use dope, so for sighting in moa is easy. Go out to 100, miss x inches, adjust the same in moa.
in the end, both are just a unit of angular measurement.

 

[hereinaz]

You are right. Once a shooter realizes that the reticle is a ruler a few inches in front of the eye, all the discussion of inches and conversion to MOA are unnecessary. Then, it makes sense why MIL is easier to use as a ruler and for subtraction and addition. It is far easier to count/add/subtract in dollars/fractions of dollars with dimes than with quarters. How many quarters are in $3.60 dollars vs. how many dimes in $3.75 dollars?

Measuring with a reticle ends all the "calculations" and shooting becomes "measure and act." Zeroing, just measure and click. Follow up shot, measure the miss and shoot.

 

[Coopsdaddy]

You are right. Once a shooter realizes that the reticle is a ruler a few inches in front of the eye, all the discussion of inches and conversion to MOA are unnecessary. Then, it makes sense why MIL is easier to use as a ruler and for subtraction and addition. It is far easier to count/add/subtract in dollars/fractions of dollars with dimes than with quarters. How many quarters are in $3.60 dollars vs. how many dimes in $3.75 dollars?

Measuring with a reticle ends all the "calculations" and shooting becomes "measure and act." Zeroing, just measure and click. Follow up shot, measure the miss and shoot.

That is the first time after reading 20 post it made sense to me,I am definitely lacking in the math department.I thought my brain liked inches because my mechanic background but I had to a think about that.15 qtrs and I had to use my fingers.37 pretty quick.

 

[Wrench]

I just tell everyone it's just a base unit of measurement moa is akin to quarters, mils to tenths. Regardless if you understand both you can use both and be pretty deadly. The only shooting video I've posted was done with the one moa scope I have. At 1100 yds it doesn't matter if your dope says 8 mils or 28 moa....you're still scratching out the math. Now when you whiff that shot and your spotter calls a .5 mil wind adjustment and you're on a moa scope.....shit can go sideways quick.

 

[hereinaz]

That is the first time after reading 20 post it made send to me,I am definitely lacking in the math department.I thought my brain liked inches because my mechanic background but I had to a think about that.15 qtrs and I had to use my fingers.37 pretty quick.

It’s just hard to wrap our minds around new things, this was for me too. I did construction and built furniture, so I knew inches deep in my soul, hahaha. So, I tried to explain it in a way that the old me would understand. Took me months to really figure it all out.

In general, systems we are already know, they are definitely easier than new systems/things we don’t yet understand. But, once something clicks, like you said, it gets easier. Our brains don’t like trying the change.

 

[hereinaz]

I just tell everyone it's just a base unit of measurement moa is akin to quarters, mils to tenths. Regardless if you understand both you can use both and be pretty deadly. The only shooting video I've posted was done with the one moa scope I have. At 1100 yds it doesn't matter if your dope says 8 mils or 28 moa....you're still scratching out the math. Now when you whiff that shot and your spotter calls a .5 mil wind adjustment and you're on a moa scope.....shit can go sideways quick.

Exactly. Communication is exactly why I listed that as a reason to choose one over the other…

 

[JMFS]

MIL is easier math. Basically a consistent 1000th of something. 100 yds = 3600 inches, divide that by 1000 = 3.6 inches = 1 MIL. 100 m = 10000 cm, divide that by 1000 = 10 cm = 1 MIL. Keep your units consistent. If you intermingle it gets confusing. The wind relationship is a nice bonus too.

 

[speedyjay400]

I always found myself quicker with MOA ...I felt this mainly because it was what we went by for long range shooting in the military with the m16a4 iron sight for windage and elevation adjustments . Not only that but growing up and using inch system for measuring in construction and for most of

 

[hereinaz]

I always found myself quicker with MOA ...I felt this mainly because it was what we went by for long range shooting in the military with the m16a4 iron sight for windage and elevation adjustments . Not only that but growing up and using inch system for measuring in construction and for most of

I agree, that for many MOA is intuitive to use for many hunters, in the way that you describe. The choice often comes down to philosophy of use. Having the ability to think in inches and the "one inch per 100 yards" works. There is no need to change, if that is what a shooter wants to do. That's what I would call a philosophy of use, because MOA and MIL are tools and can be used however a person chooses.

It is a default philosophy of use because it is a practical method using intuition with the "inch at a hundred" shortcut. That intuitive use is inconsistent with the more technical use of MOA and MIL as an angle of measurement. Shooters using MOA in the way you use, they can get confused when MIL people try to explain because they are talking different languages with a different philosophy.

That is always an underlying issue with the debate between MOA and MIL. Those advocating and using MOA almost always fall into your philosophy of use and experience. There is no need to fix what isn't broken.

Many advocating for MIL have converted from the MOA philosophy of use for some reason. They might want to see why people say MIL is easier and better. Or, they shot with people who were using MIL and wanted to talk the same language. Either way, the shooter has to change the way they think about the MOA as a linear one inch measurement at 100 yards, and start thinking of it as an angle.

Many use MOA as an angular measurement, in the same way that MIL users do. They also have the capacity to use "inch at 100 yards." They use the best of both worlds. The only drawback is if they are with MIL shooters, translation has to happen. But, if they are with a lot of MOA shooters its good because no translation need to occur. All my scopes are MIL, and when I shoot with hunter friends, I have to translate in my head to MOA. That kinda sucks, but I prefer MIL and I often shoot with competition/hunter friends, so all my scopes are MIL.

Because of that, I never tell my friends that they have to get MIL, I just try to explain it and then let them decide what works for them. Most have stuck with MOA, but the few that primarily shoot long range with me, they are the ones that switched to MIL.

 

[wind gypsy]

. I have not done it, but I bet 1 moa increments on a scope are almost unreadable.

The finer comp style scopes typically have subtensions on the 0.2 or 0.25 mil level. That’s finer than 1 MOA. Still tend to prefer mil reticles for some reason.

 

[prm]

You are right. Once a shooter realizes that the reticle is a ruler a few inches in front of the eye, all the discussion of inches and conversion to MOA are unnecessary. Then, it makes sense why MIL is easier to use as a ruler and for subtraction and addition. It is far easier to count/add/subtract in dollars/fractions of dollars with dimes than with quarters. How many quarters are in $3.60 dollars vs. how many dimes in $3.75 dollars?

Measuring with a reticle ends all the "calculations" and shooting becomes "measure and act." Zeroing, just measure and click. Follow up shot, measure the miss and shoot.

Unless you have a duplex reticle, or a #4, or #1, … no ruler.

I have SWFA 6x scopes in Mils and one in MOA. I don’t really find one easier than the other in terms of measure/adjust/shoot. Neither requires math, just dial to the number.

Zeroing a duplex scope using targets with 1” grid is easier in MOA.

Most everything else seems easier in MILs. Certainly learning more advanced wind corrections or remembering hold overs seems easier in MILs.

 

[speedyjay400]

The finer comp style scopes typically have subtensions on the 0.2 or 0.25 mil level. That’s finer than 1 MOA. Still tend to prefer mil reticles for some reason.

Hmm.....on a moa style turret are usually in 1/4"@100yrd increments ...you can get them in 1/8" but it's a little unnecessary....so 4 click for one inch at 100yrds ....where with mil it would take 2 or 3 clicks (2.54 click to be exact) so in reality the moa is more fine tunable

 

[BULLBLASTER]

For the purpose of initially setting scope elevation, is it beneficial for it to be base 10? My rangefinder says 6.7 I turn the dial until 6.7 not caring about how many clicks.

For the purpose of correcting based upon round impact, the reticle can be looked at like a comparator, say you missed by 1.5 hashmarks. All you have to do is correct by 1.5 hashmarks and shoot again, it doesnt matter if those hash marks are moa, mil, or potatoes.

Where it could get interesting is if you want to dial an elevation correction based upon impact, though i would argue that is more an exercise in knowing your reticle than mil/moa.

 

[hereinaz]

Hmm.....on a moa style turret are usually in 1/4"@100yrd increments ...you can get them in 1/8" but it's a little unnecessary....so 4 click for one inch at 100yrds ....where with mil it would take 2 or 3 clicks (2.54 click to be exact) so in reality the moa is more fine tunable

Yes, MOA is a "finer" adjustment because .25 MOA is .25 inches adjustment and .1 MIL is .36 inches adjustment.

Have you ever needed to be so precise that .11 of an inch was important at 100 yards?

 

[JohnJohnson]

Yes, MOA is a "finer" adjustment because .25 MOA is .25 inches adjustment and .1 MIL is .36 inches adjustment.

Have you ever needed to be so precise that .11 of an inch was important at 100 yards?

Hmm.....on a moa style turret are usually in 1/4"@100yrd increments ...you can get them in 1/8" but it's a little unnecessary....so 4 click for one inch at 100yrds ....where with mil it would take 2 or 3 clicks (2.54 click to be exact) so in reality the moa is more fine tunable

To say the quiet part out loud and expand on this, if someone doesn't shoot benchrest competitions MRAD is better for every other kind of long range shooting I can think of. People can make MOA work just fine but it's not as useful as MRAD. The "why" is gone over in a lot of detail in this thread below, among others.

SFP is BETTER than FFP for LR Hunting... Change My Mind

Did my clickbait get you? Good, because I really want to learn more and provoke some good discussion here! I'm new here and not trolling, just trying to learn more about the popular preference for FFP/MIL scopes over SFP/MOA. I'll start by describing why I am an SFP/MOA user: I have an...

rokslide.com

 

[hereinaz]

For the purpose of initially setting scope elevation, is it beneficial for it to be base 10? My rangefinder says 6.7 I turn the dial until 6.7 not caring about how many clicks.

For the purpose of correcting based upon round impact, the reticle can be looked at like a comparator, say you missed by 1.5 hashmarks. All you have to do is correct by 1.5 hashmarks and shoot again, it doesnt matter if those hash marks are moa, mil, or potatoes.

Where it could get interesting is if you want to dial an elevation correction based upon impact, though i would argue that is more an exercise in knowing your reticle than mil/moa.

I agree with you on those points. Once you dial, all you need to do is figure out where on the reticle was the impact and then use that as the POI (assuming it wasn't you that made a bad shot).

MIL becomes easier during situations around the actual shot process you discussed.

 

[hereinaz]

To say the quiet part out loud and expand on this, if someone doesn't shoot benchrest competitions MRAD is better for every other kind of long range shooting I can think of. People can make MOA work just fine but it's not as useful as MRAD. The "why" is gone over in a lot of detail in this thread below, among others.

SFP is BETTER than FFP for LR Hunting... Change My Mind

Did my clickbait get you? Good, because I really want to learn more and provoke some good discussion here! I'm new here and not trolling, just trying to learn more about the popular preference for FFP/MIL scopes over SFP/MOA. I'll start by describing why I am an SFP/MOA user: I have an...

rokslide.com

After shooting my MIL scopes for a while, I shot with a buddy and when I was adjusting for elevation on his rifle, I thought, HOLY COW, this is taking forever to dial all these MOA, as I went around the first revolution....

 

[5811]

Give a carpenter a quality tape measure in any units and he'll build you a house.

It's definitely easier if the whole crew uses the same units, though.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Give a carpenter a quality tape measure in any units and he'll build you a house.

That tends to muddle the discussion though. One system is better than the other. And also, people can make the slightly worse one work with a little more effort. Both of those things can be true. I don't think anyone is telling MOA guys to go sell their scopes and convert but I'd tell anyone buying their first scope for longer range shooting to go with MRAD because it's just a bit better in basically every way for practical uses.

A PRS shooter could take a $300 scope and probably outshoot me easily with my far more expensive scope. That does not mean one isn't better than the other.