Is there an advantage to mil over MOA?

[Rob5589]

I've used both and prefer mils, the measurements are simpler for me. Both are angular measurements that we equate to either inches or cm.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

I’m not trying to be rude,

I doubt that.

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?

You assume that everyone who isn't using a mental mil pattern is just a complete idiot that has to read the entire scope manual and ballistic app user agreement before pulling the trigger?
You're turning this discussion into timed competition equipment argument, not everyone wants to dive that deep and there are ways of being extremely proficient hunting without needing to be Rainman behind the scope.

 

[Formidilosus]

You assume that everyone who isn't using a mental mil pattern is just a complete idiot that has to read the entire scope manual and ballistic app user agreement before pulling the trigger?

No. I am speaking to reality that plays out when using both systems from rank beginner to world class in field shooting.

You're turning this discussion into timed competition equipment argument, not everyone wants to dive that deep and there are ways of being extremely proficient hunting without needing to be Rainman behind the scope.

That’s exactly the point. It is more difficult- that is more mental steps to use MOA than mil. What is your experience and how much use have you in a mil scope? How many rounds a year with both MOA and mil using the reticle and dialing?


The simplest “system” to use and learn is a FFP mil/mil scope.

 

[Formidilosus]

To be clear-

I am not saying someone can’t use MOA well- multiple people from this forum, including one of the owners, has seen me repeatedly use MOA scopes on demand. I’m saying having used mil and MOA very heavily, watching a lot of shooters use both and measuring the differences between them- they are not equal. There is a difference in ease of use, speed, and correct answers from true beginner to well experienced.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

That’s exactly the point. It is more difficult- that is more mental steps to use MOA than mil. What is your experience and how much use have you in a mil scope? How many rounds a year with both MOA and mil using the reticle and dialing?

I'll say for just one system I have no less than 10k rounds behind an M110 with a NF tremor3. Using the formulas works fine when you can think (more like react) in one cartridge all the time. Using MIL holdovers and wind dots is the same unless its caliber specific. The tried and true hunting setups don't require the same dedication to one ballistic profile. If I know my drop/wind chart or custom turret is solid for the altitude and I have a backup ballistic calc for long range shots, then I can pick any gun out of the safe and I do not feel handicapped whatsoever compared to using a dedicated system while hunting. Hell, I don't even care if its MOA or MIL hashes, its just dial distance and wind holdoffs.

 

[Formidilosus]

I'll say for just one system I have no less than 10k rounds behind an M110 with a NF tremor3. Using the formulas works fine when you can think (more like react) in one cartridge all the time. Using MIL holdovers and wind dots is the same unless its caliber specific.

Thank you for the response. Unfortunately using a Tremer is a bastardized think, not a mil as is being discussed. It’s a mil hold, with BDC wind dots.

Would you answer the questions in post #49?

 

[Shō[t]gun]

Thank you for the response. Unfortunately using a Tremer is a bastardized think, not a mil as is being discussed. It’s a mil hold, with BDC wind dots.

With a turret... that dials... in mils. And wind hashes... also in mils.

Would you answer the questions in post #49?

Yearly round count is irrelevant, I could say any number as a random guy on the interwebs so no I won't play into that game.

This is, or was, a discussion on pros and cons of a new scope.
Have fun with your system, others exist too and they're not wrong.

 

[Formidilosus]

With a turret... that dials... in mils. And wind hashes... also in mils.

That no one uses. This is a hunting site, but what place isn’t using the Tremor 3 as it is designed with holding reticle and using the wind dots?

Yearly round count is irrelevant, I could say any number as a random guy on the interwebs so no I won't play into that game.

This is, or was, a discussion on pros and cons of a new scope.
Have fun with your system, others exist too and they're not wrong.

So you won’t answer the question?

It’s hard to have a conversation when people participating won’t discuss their experience or level of understanding about what is being discussed.

 

[Shō[t]gun]

That no one uses. This is a hunting site, but what place isn’t using the Tremor 3 as it is designed with holding reticle and using the wind dots?

Anyone who wants to use a perfectly functioning piece of their equipment...

It’s hard to have a conversation when people participating won’t discuss their experience or level of understanding about what is being discussed.

It's really easy, you take their points at face value and move on.

This thread got murdered, goodbye.

 

[Marbles]

The four basic units (or base units) of measure to quantify physical properties in an actual, true blue, real life system are: Length, Area, Volume, and Mass.

Area is a derived unit, not a base unit. See the image you posted. Angles are supplementary units.

Other base units were added later such as temperature, electrical currents, light properties, and then additional/supplemental units have been added and revised over time., and this will likely continue to occur (for example, is time a base unit at all??). Notice that angles are not a base unit.

No, light intensity is not a "property," color is a property.

View attachment 506246

Both Radian and Degree are accepted by the System of International Units for use as derived dimensionless units for plan angles. This is from the International Bureau of Weights and Measure.

But, I never said degrees were not acceptable, I said they are not part of the SI system, SP 330 section 4: Non-SI units that are accepted for use with the SI is where one can find degrees listed. https://www.nist.gov/pml/special-publication-330/sp-330-section-4

Again, radians are an SI unit, as is plainly stated, degrees are not. Someone who prattles on about others not grasping foundational principles should have a firm grasp themselves. You also specifically said the radian was not an SI unit, which it certainly is.

The sole reason I keep responding here is because it is terrible information to tell a new or otherwise uninformed shooter that minutes of angle work with yards/feet/inches and milliradians work with meters, decimeters, centimeters, etc. It leads the uninformed to think that they are pigeon-holed into one type of scope over another. Even if BIMP explicitly excluded the use of degrees, it would not matter in the context of this discussion. But again, that isn't the case and both Degrees and Radians are explicitly stated as acceptable units for plane angles.

I really hope the bold is a joke, because MOA most certainly works with yards/feet/inches, it also happens to work with meters/centimeters. The same holds true for MRAD. The point is which one is more ergonomic with the other.

SI is more ergonomic in general, it does not make sense to go to the trouble of relearning one unit just to pair it with a less ergonomic unit. One can do it, but why?

Radian, Degree, IPHY, Gron, or some new made-up random angle, it simply doesn't matter in terms of function or workflow. I'm pretty sure it was Cleckner that said something like 'if turret dials had colors and shapes, we could simply dial/hold the orange circle to hit a target' and that's completely true.

No, the orange triangle would only work if it is defined in a system that gives it meaning. You do not move a bullet impact in units of angle, but in units of length. Talking in dimensionless units predominantly only works if a dimensional units (distance to target) is fixed.

What does actually matter are

1. Are the scope adjustments correct and repeatable. Does the reticle subtend correctly and match the turrets' units.
2. what scopes are actually available on the market, with what reticles and what features.
3. How much are those scopes new and on the secondary market.
4. To a lesser extent, what are those around me using.

So, are these the foundational principles those who prefer one system don't have a good grasp of? Nothing about preferring MRAD excludes any of those from consideration.

 

[Trogon]

For those using mils, are you fully switched to metric in your other measurements? I.e ranging in meters and drops in cm?

 

[Marbles]

On giving it some thought, I was wrong regarding switching from yards to meters. MRAD is better than MOA and staying with only one set of poorly thought out units is better than staying with two.

 

[Rob5589]

For those using mils, are you fully switched to metric in your other measurements? I.e ranging in meters and drops in cm?

No. They are both angular measurements that can be converted either way. They aren't metric vs imperial.

 

[PRC_GUY]

See bought my first scope with MOA and stay with MOA ever since:

 

[Trogon]

No. They are both angular measurements that can be converted either way. They aren't metric vs imperial.

Well mils is metric, and unit conversions are simple, but that wasn't the question. The question is if there are mils users out there that are sticking with ranging in yards and using drops in inches? Because thinking in yards, feet, and inches as base ten fractions of each melts my brain. And if thats the case, then I will consider switching to ranging and thinking of ballistics in metric units.

 

[Rob5589]

Well mils is metric, and unit conversions are simple, but that wasn't the question. The question is if there are mils users out there that are sticking with ranging in yards and using drops in inches? Because thinking in yards, feet, and inches as base ten fractions of each melts my brain. And if thats the case, then I will consider switching to ranging and thinking of ballistics in metric units.

Nobody I ever shot with converted to metric while using a mil based scope. It was always yards/inches, since that is the way the ranges were measured in. I never thought of a 1/10th mil as .914 cm, it was always .36".

 

[Formidilosus]

Well mils is metric, and unit conversions are simple, but that wasn't the question. The question is if there are mils users out there that are sticking with ranging in yards and using drops in inches? Because thinking in yards, feet, and inches as base ten fractions of each melts my brain. And if thats the case, then I will consider switching to ranging and thinking of ballistics in metric units.

Why would inches come into it at all?

 

[Trogon]

Why would inches come into it at all?

That's what I'm asking too. If mils is a base ten system, it makes sense to me to use base ten units rather than yards and decimal inches, which comes out in funky numbers:



So wondering if people just fully convert to metric to make the base ten distances work clean. Set rangefinder to meters and ballistic app to metric:

Nobody I ever shot with converted to metric while using a mil based scope. It was always yards/inches, since that is the way the ranges were measured in. I never thought of a 1/10th mil as .914 cm, it was always .36".

Thanks. That answers my question.

 

[Wrench]

If you can wrap your head around the fact that both are simply standards of measurement it is simple to use either. I find it easier to count by tens so mils makes it easier....but clicks are clicks.

You just need to know how many for your task.

 

[Formidilosus]

That's what I'm asking too. If mils is a base ten system, it makes sense to me to use base ten units rather than yards and decimal inches, which comes out in funky numbers:

View attachment 506747

So wondering if people just fully convert to metric to make the base ten distances work clean. Set rangefinder to meters and ballistic app to metric:

Why are you using inches or cm at all? You have a reticle, use the tape measure that is 2”3.5” in front of your eye.