Another MOA vs Mil thread

[Just Over That Ridge]

I have read extensively on the MOA vs Mil debate. I fully understand that they are angular measurements and nothing more. Cutting through all of the unnecessary BS, I recognize the potential growth as a shooter that using a mil reticle offers with more intuitive wind holds and an easier to remember quick drop system with how my mind works.

I just do not know if it will offer me, a flatlander from the east, an advantage. That is, I do not think I would ever in practice use the quicker wind hold or quick drop chart. In any sort of long range scenario that I would be comfortable taking a shot at an animal in the west, conditions would be calm and everything run through 4DOF which would offer up a solution in MOA or Mils, so that’s a wash between them.

My dad would be my spotter on a hunt and would call impacts in inches at the target. He doesn’t speak minutes or mils and won’t start now. Given the very close approximation of 1 minute per 100 yards, a reticle that speaks minutes would be more intuitive for me to make quicker corrections on follow up shots based on the impacts being called in inches at the target.

With this set of parameters, what would y’all recommend. There are likely other factors I have neglected to consider that could make a real difference in this decision. Thanks all.

 

[Rob5589]

Pick one, learn it. Simple as that.

 

[Dmoua]

I use MOA for all my hunting rifles. It’s easier to think in inches in my opinion.

 

[Raider4044]

Mils all the way. Much simpler and easier to use for a number of reasons. 1/10 increments are much quicker and easier to process than 1/4. You see tons of shooters converting from MOA to Mils, but VERY rarely see somebody changing from Mils to MOA. That speaks volumes IMO.

The main argument you see for MOA is the correlation to inches. Whether you use MOA or Mils, that is not the way you should think about it. Learn to use your reticle and use MOA or Mils as your unit of measurement. LOTS of shooters get caught up trying to convert a linear measurement to an angular measurement and can get confused quick.

 

[tak]

mils is so much simpler, you should never be thinking in inches. There's way too much error that way anyway even if you had the time to convert.

In your case, with your dad spotting in inches, it's more accurate for you to estimate what he thinks is "4 inches" and move your impact that distance than it is is to convert to either mils or MOA.

If you understand that they are both angular measurements, then maybe you can understand that mils will prevent you from thinking in inches since it doesn't line up to "1 inch per hundred yards". Once I switched to mils, I was was no longer tempted to try to think in inches, and the practical use of angular measurements really clicked, and my shooting was much more efficient/quicker with more hits on targets.

 

[tak]

Mils all the way. Much simpler and easier to use for a number of reasons. 1/10 increments are much quicker and easier to process than 1/4. You see tons of shooters converting from MOA to Mils, but VERY rarely see somebody changing from Mils to MOA. That speaks volumes IMO.

The main argument you see for MOA is the correlation to inches. Whether you use MOA or Mils, that is not the way you should think about it. Learn to use your reticle and use MOA or Mils as your unit of measurement. LOTS of shooters get caught up trying to convert a linear measurement to an angular measurement and can get confused quick.

We posted at the same time, and I agree with what he said completely.

 

[JFK]

Mils offers some advantage but moa works fine as well. My main hunting rifle I use moa and shoot at the range that typically has quite a bit of wind where I utilize my reticle to hold for wind. The above posters are correct though, in that you want to think about wind holds in terms of wind value, distance to target, and unit of measure for your reticle. Inches should never enter the equation. Just because you shoot an moa scope doesn’t mean you are locked into thinking in inches.

 

[justinspicher]

Stop overthinking it, pick one, practice and that’s it.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Why do folks get hung up on inches, ever? Neither MOA nor MIL are inches. I'll never understand the connection that some people make.

 

[Dmoua]

Why do folks get hung up on inches, ever? Neither MOA nor MIL are inches. I'll never understand the connection that some people make.

Because the scope is marked 1/4” per click at 100 yards? Pretty obvious why new shooters reference it that way.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Because the scope is marked 1/4” per click at 100 yards? Pretty obvious why new shooters reference it that way.

MOA scopes are marked in MOA, not inches. MOA is not inches, inches are not MOA.

 

[Southern Lights]

Just pick one and keep a drop table in your bino harness or taped to your rifle. Or, get some binos with built in ballistic drop calculator.

I use mils for LR rifles, but hunting rifles are MOA because I just like the scope/reticle options better on those rifles. As long as you can get a good range, and have good drop table, you will hit just as well with either just as fast.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

This is flawed logic. Either way you’re doing math to figure out what that translates to. Furthermore, what is he using to call impact in inches from center? Unless he’s using a mil or moa reticle and then doing the math then he’s just guessing which you can do the same.

Mil mo betta.

 

[atmat]

I made the switch from MOA to mil last year and it wasn't hard. In addition to the wind estimate you mentioned, it does open up scope options. Also, it helps break the thought of “inches at 100/200/300” and get you thinking correctly in units of angular measurements.

 

[willsyb]

Alternate option? BDC reticle for your specific round. If you want to use the mil reticle for estimating, and don't plan on dialing up and down (which I agree is better than MOA), a more efficient route could be a BDC like the ACSS. I shoot 308 & 556 bolt and semi, and have been able to reliably hit on the holdovers out to 600 yards. It has windage adjustments as well.

 

[Coopsdaddy]

Curious why its better other than a few more clicks?
I was thinking about the change and I ask because it seems to be just a matter of opinion,i ask a major long range school and a major gun builder this week there opinion for a hunting scope.Both said if you have moa no reason to change.

 

[sdfuller]

When I first started out in engineering I had to do a lot of work in metric. I prefer designing in metric, but I still think in inches. After a while it became easy to convert from one to the other on the fly. Moa and mils will both get you the same result, just different units. Pick whatever makes the most sense for you. If you use it long enough, you’ll easily be able to convert the two in your head.

Also, kinda like how you’ve memorized certain multiplication tables (4x4=16), you’ll memorize certain measurements at distances (1in @100 = 2.7 mils)

 

[atmat]

When I first started out in engineering I had to do a lot of work in metric. I prefer designing in metric, but I still think in inches. After a while it became easy to convert from one to the other on the fly. Moa and mils will both get you the same result, just different units. Pick whatever makes the most sense for you. If you use it long enough, you’ll easily be able to convert the two in your head.

Also, kinda like how you’ve memorized certain multiplication tables (4x4=16), you’ll memorize certain measurements at distances (1in @100 = 2.7 mils)

I respectfully disagree with this. Why people get confused is that they’re trying to think in linear units to begin with (i.e., inches at XYZ yards).

Part of why I switched to mil was because I already had “MOA=inches at yards” too engrained in my head, and I wanted to start thinking about it as it is: angular units.

Also, mil offer easier numbers, other scope options, and easier wind calls.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

FFP mils. Even if someone is giving you correction in inches, you've got the ruler in front of your face and can spatially measure it. What's really handy is shooting a caliber/setup that allows you to spot your on shots.

 

[ARK_Ginger]

Also, kinda like how you’ve memorized certain multiplication tables (4x4=16), you’ll memorize certain measurements at distances (1in @100 = 2.7 mils)

I believe you meant to say .27 mils~ 1in @ 100yards. 2.7 mils would be 9.7" @100