MIL or MOA

[wind gypsy]

My intent was not to call you out. My point is that a right angle can be labeled as 90 degrees or 1/2pi radians, doesn't change the angle. Personally i think the differences between the two dimensionless angular units are typically misunderstood or blown way out of proportion. Units don't provide an inherent benefit to what is trying to be accomplished, which is the incremental approximation of a nonlinear path.

I think we are all in agreement on this.

In the end we have a choice to make and while they both do the same thing there are differences worth noting. I'm trying to consolidate to Mils so I can consistently think in the same unit and I don't end up with the wrong unit of measurement in a ballistic solver that houses multiple rifle profiles. Thinking and communicating to a single decimal point in factors of 10 is cleaner and faster than to 2 decimal points in factors of 4. More travel per revolution is another typical benefit of Mils.

If someone doesn't have a reticle to measure I can see how it might be easier for someone in the US to think roughly in 1" @ 100 yards vs 3.6" or .36". Since most people can measure in angular measurement with a reticle, calculating the physical distance of correction at the target in your head isn't important IMO.

If another 0.11 MOA in refinement between the two makes people feel better about their zero or adjustments that's cool. I can't shoot well enough for it to matter.

 

[16Bore]

MOA with mil dots is a pain in the ass. Mil on the dial and Mil on the reticle is like having a yardstick taped to your scope.


Or a mil stick, if ya wanna get picky.

 

[idaho-shooter]

I used MOA forever. Dreaded the day I would switch to MIL. Finally did, and wow so much easier. Smaller numbers.

MIL all the way.

Side benefit is most other shooters, and most all in the competitive long range shooters are using MIL too. Just easier to communicate with your friends.

 

[TheCougar]

Do you think in Metric or English units? What units does your shooting partner(s) think in?

MOA = English
Mils = Metric

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

This is not a true statement. They are radial measurements and are irrespective of imperial or metric measurements. Yes, MOA roughly translates to inches (technically it is 1.047 inches per 100 yards, I think), but Mils are miliradians, not a metric measurement. That being said, I have both types of scopes and despite the fact that I thought I favored MOA because I was more comfortable with the mental math, it turns out I like Mils more. Like several guys have mentioned, pick one and stick with it. I like Mils more because dialing in tenths is just easy and I find it less error prone. Dialing 3.4 Mils with a 2 mil hold for wind is easier than a 14.8 MOA with a .25 MOA hold.

 

[16Bore]

The biggest thing for me was to stop thinking about "inches" or converting MOA or MIL to inches. Get that outta your head and it's suddenly a "well duh" moment.

Especially easy when the reticle matches the dial.

 

[UtahJimmy]

This is not a true statement. They are radial measurements and are irrespective of imperial or metric measurements. Yes, MOA roughly translates to inches (technically it is 1.047 inches per 100 yards, I think), but Mils are miliradians, not a metric measurement. That being said, I have both types of scopes and despite the fact that I thought I favored MOA because I was more comfortable with the mental math, it turns out I like Mils more. Like several guys have mentioned, pick one and stick with it. I like Mils more because dialing in tenths is just easy and I find it less error prone. Dialing 3.4 Mils with a 2 mil hold for wind is easier than a 14.8 MOA with a .25 MOA hold.

Just because they are dimensionless does not mean they are unitless. A milliradian IS a metric unit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[TheCougar]

Just because they are dimensionless does not mean they are unitless. A milliradian IS a metric unit.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I’m not trying to be a dick or pick a keyboard fight, but I am confident that is an incorrect statement. A milliradian is 1/1000 of a radian, where a radian equals the arc length. A milliradian is simply 1/1000 of that measurement. A radian is not unitless, because when you measure the radius or arc length, that value has an associated unit, whether
Standard or metric. You can measure the value of a milliradian based on whatever unit you want - inches, centimeters, cubits, whatever. I suppose you can do the same with MOA as well maybe, since they are both angular measurements. I’ve never really thought about that, but that is a squirrel tangent. The bottom line is this: mils are “unit agnostic” and are not “metric”. They are measured in whatever units you want. I measure mine in standard units as my yardage (radius) is calculated in yards. I’m sure there are much smarter guys on here who can make a more eloquent defense of mils, so I’ll just let my attempt end here.

If we are having a pointless semantics argument over “metric” meaning a decimal based system versus “Metric” meaning the measurement system most of the world uses, then I guess you would be technically correct that a milliradian is a “metric” measurement in that sense. But certainly not “Metric”, which most people (Including me) would infer from your post.

 

[16Bore]

You can call them donuts if you want. Dope says 2.5 donuts, turn the dial to 2.5 or hold between the second and third donut line.

 

[TheCougar]

Mmmm. Donut...
https://media.tenor.com/images/e0c23f6024ee0bdcdb6f9e990091b12a/tenor.gif


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk