Is there an advantage to mil over MOA?

[wildcat33]

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.

I agree with this and using the reticle as a reference dimension.

I'm trying to understand the theory of the system as it is applied. Its essentially metric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit), but it appears common to mix in yards and inches when describing distance, height, or any other dimension when not looking through a scope at a target. From a science/math viewpoint, its sloppy and not intuitive to mix units. Not saying its better or worse, just want to understand what the state of practice is.

 

[prm]

Range - dial adjustment - shoot - adjust by angular measurement in reticle - shoot again

Elements of each angular measurement hurt my head so I’ll use whichever.

 

[Formidilosus]

I agree with this and using the reticle as a reference dimension.

I'm trying to understand the theory of the system as it is applied. Its essentially metric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit), but it appears common to mix in yards and inches when describing distance, height, or any other dimension when not looking through a scope at a target. From a science/math viewpoint, its sloppy and not intuitive to mix units. Not saying its better or worse, just want to understand what the state of practice is.

You are making it harder than it is. There are zero issues using yards and mils. By necessity I have to use both meters and yards constantly, with mil and unfortunately MOA at times. What does describing a tree as “5 feet tall”, have anything to do with shooting?

 

[ORJoe]

Why would inches come into it at all?

"About how big is that animal?"
Range it with laser, look at it through reticle, do math
MIL to meters and centimeters is super easy
MOA to yards and inches is reasonably easy
MIL to yards and tenths of a yard is kind of a pain

 

[Shraggs]

I agree with this and using the reticle as a reference dimension.

I'm trying to understand the theory of the system as it is applied. Its essentially metric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_derived_unit), but it appears common to mix in yards and inches when describing distance, height, or any other dimension when not looking through a scope at a target. From a science/math viewpoint, its sloppy and not intuitive to mix units. Not saying its better or worse, just want to understand what the state of practice is.

I think marbles cleared up the this motion of metric and mils. This motion is akin to a carpenter using a tape measure in metric only for commercial construction on sundays….

Mil AND Moa are not a measure of distance. They are measures of degrees from a reference. Think if a protractor or a battleship gun turret. If the battleship needs to hit a target at two miles the turret will be slightly elevated. If it needs to hit a 20 mile/32 kilometer then the gun turret will be elevated higher from its axis or reference and the 2 mile target position. Thst can be measured in degrees or moa or mil. But the turret elevation will be the same regardless.

The value of degrees is different subdivided in moa vs mil if degrees. This only affects how many clicks to get to the same solution, or elevation of the turret in above example.

There is zero need to figure in inches or cm the drop of a bullet to target once known, and then moving clicks to that drop. That is something to forever cease considering. Once distance is known, your app/kestrel/rf bino/dope card etc already have your “verified “ ballistic curve programmed. You’re simply taking zeroed poi from 100 yard zero to move the gun barrel up to the new distance. No conversion is need in any system once the distance of target is known. Dial snd shoot (assuming zero wind ).

Both degree systems will give you same results.

The commentary by some, including me is that using mil scope can be quicker to dial and shoot a solution vs moa given a streamlined number of steps. Specifically accounting for wind holds in that math for most is easier in base 10 vs fractions and the g1 bc if your bullet corresponds to a wind bracket which predicts .1mil drift per 100 yards. (See detail earlier in thread).

Its this later wind hold determination that may be quicker, not spinning the turret and anything involving measuring inches or cm.

Some, here feel they are equally fast in either system, ie the wind hold. Both easily handle distance or elevation.

 

[Formidilosus]

"About how big is that animal?"
Range it with laser, look at it through reticle, do math
MIL to meters and centimeters is super easy
MOA to yards and inches is reasonably easy
MIL to yards and tenths of a yard is kind of a pain

Who does this for functional use? Mil reading errors are so large that just about anyone that is actually judging the score/size of an animals rack through a scope, is just as accurate using any other method and they should be doing so through a spotter.

This is one of those obscure things that people come up with that is never done (or so rarely done as to be a joke) to justify some point that doesn’t make sense otherwise. The reality is people use scopes and reticles to aim at and hit targets. Elevation, windage, corrections for shots, and very rarely for range estimation.


And, even if trying to measure an animals rack with a reticle through a scope, there is zero need to covert anything in your head as it’s not a rushed thing. Lots of apps, let alone physical card such as a Mildot Master, have ranging features built in.

 

[ORJoe]

Who does this for functional use?

I did last summer, technically.
Drove to the top of a mountain. Dad had the elk tag for last year so I had to force him to practice.
"That brown rock is 600 yards away, use the spot where the cross hair gets really thick. Make sure you're zoomed in all the way."
Bang - hit
Bang bang bang - hit hit hit
"That seemed too easy, let me look through your scope"
Rock is 18 moa wide
"I'm glad you didn’t miss, but that rock is the size of a Volkswagen so this doesn't mean you can quit practicing."

(or so rarely done as to be a joke)

Ok maybe you got me there

 

[wildcat33]

I think marbles cleared up the this motion of metric and mils. This motion is akin to a carpenter using a tape measure in metric only for commercial construction on sundays…..

You made my point, which is mils is a base 10 system (I won’t call that metric, but there’s no difference) and users have shoehorned in imperial units which makes it less intuitive than it could be if we used metric units. But as stated already it’s not necessary to understand the fundamentals underlying the math to shoot with it. All my scopes are mils, have no issues. Just a point of discussion.

 

[Outdoorsman12b]

To all struggling with converting mils or moa to inches or cm - go read Form’s post “how to use that new SWFA” About a 5 min read and you won’t worry about this again.

 

[Dobermann]

And perhaps this by Frank Galli: https://www.snipershide.com/precision-rifle/stop-the-debate-mils-vs-moa-vs-iphy/

And this if you realllly want to understand all the maths involved (but it's really not necessary): https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ath-behind-them.25/updates#resource-update-26

 

[WMag338]

Wow. This thread got really heated.

I shoot MOA because that is intuitive to me. Like others have said, I range, look at my dope, dial, and shoot.

Works well for me.

 

[fwafwow]

I have set up a Google search so that I’m alerted to a thread in which a question is asked + “I’m out” is posted.

 

[RS_Non-Res]

... but +1 for @Dobermann 's Galli links.

 

[ID_Matt]

If you can completely get it out of your head that you need to convert angular measurements to inches, then MIL is easier in my opinion. I was the same as most, preferred MOA because I wanted to know how many inches I was holding. Once I switched to MIL and realized that is completely pointless, using base 10 numbers is much faster for my pea-sized brain to process. Using gun numbers to estimate wind holds or using the weaponized math is pretty cool stuff. Have no idea how you would do that with an MOA system.

 

[Flyjunky]

Just use whatever system is most comfortable to you and learn that system well. I can understand the whole speed thing in a competitive shooting situation but during hunting I think the whole "mils is faster" doesn't really matter so much.

If we are talking about dialing a scope then the distance is great enough that a rangefinder is most likely going to be used. Getting into shooting position, ranging, checking wind, etc....what's another 1-2 seconds to look at a range card? How is knowing your drop off the top of your head in a situation like that going to help?

 

[Dobermann]

View attachment 507131

... but +1 for @Dobermann 's Galli links.

Shhh ... some of the 'MOA' guys might realise they're actually IPHY guys, then heads will really explode ...

 

[Pronghunter]

Who does this for functional use? Mil reading errors are so large that just about anyone that is actually judging the score/size of an animals rack through a scope, is just as accurate using any other method and they should be doing so through a spotter.

This is one of those obscure things that people come up with that is never done (or so rarely done as to be a joke) to justify some point that doesn’t make sense otherwise.

In an earlier post I mentioned that my self and many others that I hunt/guide or associate myself with do this. Quite literally every day in the field. I'm not sure why or how one would think using an MOA reticle and a range is so hard to field judge an animals antlers?
Putting your reticle on antlers and seeing how many minutes across it is is quite simple.
And the accuracy of it is within a few inches. And again, the math takes less than a few seconds. If I tell a hunter that his Alaskan bull moose is 58" wide at 600 yards, it’s within a few inches.
No disrespect but I’m scratching my head wondering why you think “this is never done or is a joke.”
Range guys do it all the time when determining size of plates when size isn’t given.
Anyhow, I’ll move on.

 

[Dx. Luvinz]

JesusFuk, Thread been about Attractive as a SchoolBus Fire

gonna Reinvent the Wheel, even WAY better than Round.....

 

[C Bow]

This is without any doubt the most interesting thread I have ever read. It reminds me of skeet shooters. Some say sustained lead is the only way to hit targets consistently and the old timers say the only way is swing thru.
AIM SMALL MISS SMALL I really have enjoyed reading this.

 

[Marbles]

In an earlier post I mentioned that my self and many others that I hunt/guide or associate myself with do this. Quite literally every day in the field. I'm not sure why or how one would think using an MOA reticle and a range is so hard to field judge an animals antlers?
Putting your reticle on antlers and seeing how many minutes across it is is quite simple.
And the accuracy of it is within a few inches. And again, the math takes less than a few seconds. If I tell a hunter that his Alaskan bull moose is 58" wide at 600 yards, it’s within a few inches.
No disrespect but I’m scratching my head wondering why you think “this is never done or is a joke.”
Range guys do it all the time when determining size of plates when size isn’t given.
Anyhow, I’ll move on.

It also begs another question, if it is too inaccurate to estimate size, why is it accurate enough to call and correct shot placement? If

Mil reading errors are so large that just about anyone that is actually judging the score/size of an animals rack through a scope, is just as accurate using any other method and they should be doing so through a spotter.

then one would also be just as accurate using any other method to correct shot placement or zero a scope for that matter. In the end they are the same thing, using a protractor to measure an angle.

One needs math, the other does not as simply changing the angle is enough, but accuracy is within margin of error for both, though rounding from 1.047 to 1 inch does compound on larger targets at longer distances.

I guess the question is, how large is "so large?"