Is there an advantage to mil over MOA?

[BjornF16]

1 mil subtends 1 foot at 1,000 feet

1 mil subtends 1 meter at 1,000 meters

1 mil subtends 1 inch at 1,000 inches

That said, I still think the mils Quick Wind is simpler. I'll note that Accuracy 1st doesn't have a MOA QuickWind solution for Kestrel yet.

 

[Trogon]

I don’t shoot competitions so maybe my experience is old-timey, but all the ranges that I’ve been to are in yards and targets are sold with dimensions in inches. Which makes moa simpler than mils in that case.

 

[Wrench]

You guys make some good points on some complicated reasoning. I 'simply' prefer mils because I like smaller numbers. A 308 will drop ~370 inches at 1000 yards. That's ~37 MOA, or 10.8 mils. I'd rather dial the smaller 10.8 than 37. Seems less prone to error.

And 10.8 is one spin plus .8 in mils.

In moa, with a 16moa turret...2 turns plus 5moa.

 

[MHWASH]

Thank you all. There is a lot more to this than what I've been doing, which is range, dial and shoot. It does sound to me that mils is the better way to go, but I need to decide if switching mid stream is worth it or not for me. I don't typically shoot or hunt with others who are dialing so that doesn't really factor into things either. The scope in question sold so I don't have to worry about that at this point, but I'll keep looking into the MOA vs MIL.

 

[Wrench]

I have both and honestly, I get more issues from ffp/sfp to units of measurement.

I view my subtensions and click values as a "tape measure", a standard of known value....and apply that to the situation.

If I'm deciding on a moose's spread, I am going to take the time to verify my math. Beyond exacting measurements, both will get you really close with a little work.

I suggest looking at the mildot master for a method to use your scope for range estimating and measurement.

 

[Pronghunter]

Though, if learning a new system, metric is the more ergonomic systHowever, a 1 mil angle produces a 10 cm opposite at 100 meters. The math is simple. 600 m, reticle says 1.8 mil, gives 108 cm. Now, if you measure that in MOA, you have to remember that at 100 meters the opposite of a 1 MOA angle measures 2.6 cm, and you are back to the math that gives you (and me) trouble. But, mixing systems is a sign of lacking

This pretty well proves my point. We have multiple conversions to make. Again, mixing yards, inches, metric and imperial. For why?

If one is using a reticle for simple math in a system that’s well known, (US) most can swing MOA “on the fly” pretty easily. No decimals, not CM to inches etc.
Agree to disagree I guess. Just use what works per individual.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Thank you all. There is a lot more to this than what I've been doing, which is range, dial and shoot. It does sound to me that mils is the better way to go, but I need to decide if switching mid stream is worth it or not for me. I don't typically shoot or hunt with others who are dialing so that doesn't really factor into things either. The scope in question sold so I don't have to worry about that at this point, but I'll keep looking into the MOA vs MIL.

Have you thought about getting a custom etched turret?
Then the only thing you'd have to worry about is whether you like to hold off with whole numbers or decimals for wind.

 

[Marbles]

Radians are not metric units.
Degrees are not US Customary units.
Both work with yards/feet/inches/etc
Both work with meters/cm/mm/etc
Neither is a sYsTEm.

Stop thinking about the resulting vertical inches or centimeters downrange. It means nothing.

The radian is the SI unit for angle. The degree of arc is the imperial unit of angular measure. No amount of stating otherwise changes that. The fact that they are dimensionless does not change that. The fact that you can mix the two systems does not change that. I can measure something in feet and weigh it in grams, but that does not change that one unit is metric and the other imperial.

Now, if you want to argue that mixing the two systems does not matter, that is a more supportable position.

A radian is defined as a unit of angle equal to an angle at the center of a circle whose arc is equal in length to the radius. This conveniently gives pretty simple conversions using a decimal unit of measurement. Part of what makes it more ergonomic.

An MOA is 1/60th of a degree, a degree of arc is just 1/360th of a full circle. I'm not aware of an intuitive way to make the system work with trigonometry. I am open to being educated as like most Americans I learned the imperial system for angular measure first and my brain still defaults to it.

What ever a "sYsTEm is, is not what I'm talking about, but both are a system for measuring angles. Again, pretty basic definition.

The fundamentals is the geometry, the resulting change in vertical (and horizontal) distance down range is the entire point. Yes, it is theoretically simpler and better to talk in angles rather than doing trigonometry, but this does not work well in many situations (how many MOA for the vitals on a deer? Oh, wait, by definition you cannot do that.) It does work great if everyone one has a ranging reticle using the same angular unit of measure.

1 mil subtends 1 foot at 1,000 feet

1 mil subtends 1 meter at 1,000 meters

1 mil subtends 1 inch at 1,000 inches

That said, I still think the mils Quick Wind is simpler. I'll note that Accuracy 1st doesn't have a MOA QuickWind solution for Kestrel yet.

Yes, the radian is a super unit of angular measure, as you so nicely demonstrate. Now, as it is how we use the system that makes it ergonomic, is your rangefinder set to measure in feet? Do you move POI 1 inch or 1/10th of a foot?

 

[Marbles]

This pretty well proves my point. We have multiple conversions to make. Again, mixing yards, inches, metric and imperial. For why?

If one is using a reticle for simple math in a system that’s well known, (US) most can swing MOA “on the fly” pretty easily. No decimals, not CM to inches etc.
Agree to disagree I guess. Just use what works per individual.

I actually agree with that. I think MRAD is a better system and should be taught to new shooters, but there is nothing wrong with staying with what one already knows.

To quote myself

Stick with one system. Both work. Base 10 is less prone to math errors under stress. But, if shooting in mils you should really ditch yards too and use meters.

A ruler is a ruler, but some unit systems are easier to manipulate for generating outputs with the measurements.

In the context of this thread, the OP should stay with MOA.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

You can dial in more precise with MIL vs MOA....MOA easier to remember....

??

.1mil @ 100y = .36"
1/4 moa @ 100y = .25"

 

[Marbles]

This is absolutely incorrect. It's sad that this is even an argument for some.

Guys make this so difficult. If scopes were made with 1/5 Gon adjustment intervals with a correspondingly correct gon reticle, we'd set-up ballisitc solvers, have quick wind and quick drop methods, and we'd hit targets. Well, maybe not everyone would hit targets, LOL.

It is sad that guys argue against basic facts. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/SIdiagram.html

Again, you can argue that the system the unit of angular measure is part of does not matter (and you can support that argument with the link I posted); but arguing that it is not part of the system at all is a lack of foundational knowledge and a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Tmac]

Have you thought about getting a custom etched turret?
Then the only thing you'd have to worry about is whether you like to hold off with whole numbers or decimals for wind.

If I can’t stalk closer, thats my preferred hunting solution for distance if over 400 yards. Range, dial, shoot. All this math is making my head hurt.

 

[Formidilosus]

The internet scope world would be a better place if people with low skill, and/or limited broad base experience using things at a high level wouldn’t put so much incorrect information out there.


Mil is faster and easier with minimal training to use in the field. Not guessing, not talking about “well I like”, or what uncle fester did, or any other nonsense. With massive groups of users, hunters from 8-80 years old, and everything in between. I have never met someone that uses MOA that on demand knows what their drop for any given range is, or their wind call for basically any gun faster than that same person can do in mils.

 

[Formidilosus]

Elk is 600 yards. We know 1 MOA at 600 is 6”.
Reticle says antlers are 7 MOA side to side. 42”. Really easy on the fly for me.
Taking the .36” at 100 in 1/10 or 3.6” at 100 for 1mil makes it a tad slower dealing in 3.6” vs 1”.
Start taking 1 point this or 2 point that in mils at 600 yards and math becomes a challenge for me.

Do you actually believe this is a viable thing to do in the field, on moving animals, in your head? How often is it that you find that you are using your reticle to measure how wide an elks rack is, and then converting that to inches- in your head, on the fly?

 

[Dos Perros]

I have never met someone that uses MOA that on demand knows what their drop for any given range is, or their wind call for basically any gun faster than that same person can do in mils.

Why do you think that is?

 

[Formidilosus]

Why do you think that is?

Because it is not intuitive. We use a base ten system for range (100 yards or meters) and because Jesus loves us and magic, mils track in tens- they just happen to line up where for most combinations every 10 yards is .1 mil elevation change, and in others every 20 yards is a .1 mil elevation change. Yes there are cheats for MOA, but no they are not as clean and quick as mil. No matter what someone does, using MOA wind brackets is more steps to get the same answer than mil, and isn’t as clean with yardage change due to a .25 system being used in a ten based unit of measure.
This isn’t a “I like/I think/I feel” thing. It’s a measured with hundreds of thousands of rounds on a timer thing.


I and a couple others shared a couple of camps last season with some of the most vocal MOA proponents that exist (some that are known to this board), that almost anyone would say is competent, and not one could give their actual elevation for random ranges or their wind holds for random shots on demand without looking at a chart- and that was with the rifle they were using right then. One was able to say “about” after 20’ish seconds of thinking. And yet, every person with me could give them their elevation holds and wind holds within .2 mils out to 600 yards without ever firing their rifle or looking at a chart in less than 5 seconds.

 

[Pronghunter]

Do you actually believe this is a viable thing to do in the field, on moving animals, in your head? How often is it that you find that you are using your reticle to measure how wide an elks rack is, and then converting that to inches- in your head, on the fly?

Almost Daily in the field I use my reticle to measure antler width and height. A bedded elk/deer isn’t moving. A feeding elk/deer regularly gives you plenty opportunity to put your reticle on antler.
And how do you figure the math is difficult? The math is so easy that almost anyone that I guide (you should see some of the doozies I’ve had) can figure it out in seconds.
Again, how is this difficult…….
500 yard elk. Antler width shows 7 MOA across.
How can one not multiply 5x7 to get 35 on the fly? It’s the simplest math there is.

I do this on no less than 20-30 elk trip, probably 7-10 moose each year, and who know how many times on deer.

 

[Jimbee]

Depends on what crowd you're running with. If you join up with a dedicated long range shooting group at the range, odds are they'll be working with mils/meters. The issue with doing the conversion to mils by yourself is if your hunting and shooting buddies are all on MOA/yards. Adjusting for misses becomes problematic when your spotter isn't thinking in mils/meters. They'll look through their non-reticle'd spotting scope and call out in feet or inches and you have to make the conversion yourself or look through your scope and guess the spot, so the math is a lot easier with MOA in that case. You lose the crude fast-wind formulas with MOA, but wind is linear and its easier to multiply whole numbers than decimals. I've seen people try to convert and hate every second while others never look back from day 1. Different strokes..

If your hunting and shooting buddies are using moa you need to find new ones

 

[Shō[t]gun]

This isn’t a “I like/I think/I feel” thing. It’s a measured with hundreds of thousands of rounds on a timer thing.

That's why your MIL buddies can spit out crude solutions for different distances on demand. It's a different way of training that prioritizes timed hits on target over precision. That's a great way to roll in certain applications but really not necessary for hunting. There are a lot of fast misses and edge hits in PRS that would be a ruined opportunity on a deer in the field. A well thought-out drop and wind chart taped to a stock is just as fast and arguably more precise than any of the quick formulas unless the speed/BC happens to just perfectly align with the 10ths. This isn't an argument for MOA, just that the formulas are only relevant to a small crowd in a specific application and not having it memorized has zero influence on lethality in hunting.

 

[Formidilosus]

That's why your MIL buddies can spit out crude solutions for different distances on demand. It's a different way of training that prioritizes timed hits on target over precision.

I’m not trying to be rude, but you have no idea what you are talking about. There is nothing “crude” about it, and those same people can and do use MOA as fast and competently as anyone.

That's a great way to roll in certain applications but really not necessary for hunting. There are a lot of fast misses and edge hits in PRS that would be a ruined opportunity on a deer in the field.

I am speaking to hit rates on 6” to 12” targets, nothing larger. Time is a factor in real life.

A well thought-out drop and wind chart taped to a stock is just as fast

No it isn’t. This is easily provable with random targets and a shot timer.

and arguably more precise than any of the quick formulas unless the speed/BC happens to just perfectly align with the 10ths.

Speed is a component of shooting living things in field environments and absolutely should be measured in any comparison.

This isn't an argument for MOA, just that the formulas are only relevant to a small crowd in a specific application

No it is not- it is applicable to anyone that wants to be competent and/or better at field shooting.

and not having it memorized has zero influence on lethality in hunting.

So time has no application in killing animals? As in none- a technique that takes 37 minutes to get a shot off on an animal is just as good as a technique that takes 3.7 seconds to get a shot off on an animal?