wanting to know what is easier to learn, MOA or MIL?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Hoser1
    Bloodstained
    • May 2015
    • 71

    wanting to know what is easier to learn, MOA or MIL?

    I will ask the question, what is easier to learn MOA, or MIL. I am wanting to learn long distance shooting, I have my eye on a couple of scopes for the intended project based on reticle. I have done research that MOA is a more accurate reticle, I also understand that MIL has a faster dial for elevation. I do NOT CARE WHAT SCOPE IS THE BEST, that is not what I asked. this scope will not be on a grendel, it will be on a a 50 BMG single shot. I do not want to come across as an @sshole, I just want to be able to learn......
  • mdram
    Warrior
    • Sep 2016
    • 941

    #2
    There are a lot of articles and forum threads out there comparing MIL and MOA, but most either aren’t objective or they’re overly complex. I’ll try to avoid both of those pitfalls in this article. Executive Summary A few months ago I asked Bryan Litz whether he personally used MIL or MOA. Bryan is an ...
    just some targets for printing
    https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...xQ?usp=sharing

    Comment

    • LRRPF52
      Super Moderator
      • Sep 2014
      • 8569

      #3
      For ELR with a .50 BMG, I would lean to Mil.

      MOA is easy to relate to inches, but the increments you use on the turrets get rather larger mathematically, with 2 whole numbers and decimals that can be either 1 or 2 places, which is more for the mind to process when it needs to be focusing on other things.

      Mils gives you a whole number and one decimal place, until you start getting out beyond 1000yds, where you will have 2 whole number places and a decimal.

      I would get a 30 MOA base, and a scope based on Mils.

      Another reason why someone in your shoes should go with Mils is because you are going to be working with a spotter when you shoot those distances.

      Pretty much every spotting scope with a reticle I know of, sans maybe one, will have a Mil reticle in, and it just makes life easier for giving you corrections.

      You don't want to be doing math calculations to convert from MOA to Mil or Mil to MOA while the conditions change on you for your next shot, so Mil will make your shooter-spotter dialog go a lot quicker.

      These are my takes on the matter, having done a bit of ELR shooting, including the big bores like .338 LM, 7mms, .300 Win Mag, and .50 BMG.

      BTW, .50 BMG is fun with incendiary rounds on steel, for real estate that will allow it (fire concerns).

      Oh, please tell me this isn't a Hesse/Vulcan/Blackthorne .50 BMG.




      Another one:
      NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

      CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

      6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

      www.AR15buildbox.com

      Comment

      • LRRPF52
        Super Moderator
        • Sep 2014
        • 8569

        #4
        This is what I'm talking about, from the article:

        NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

        CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

        6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

        www.AR15buildbox.com

        Comment

        • wheelguner
          Warrior
          • Oct 2011
          • 407

          #5
          Been where you are and opted for Mildot Scopes on my long range rifles. Get a Mildot Master http://www.mildot.com/ and read the manual and build a database of known Target sizes base on what you are planning to shoot at practice your ranging techniques and you should be good to go.

          Comment

          • Klem
            Chieftain
            • Aug 2013
            • 3509

            #6
            Mils and MOA represent the two seminal measuring systems in the world; Metric and Imperial.

            While the rest of the world have changed over to the Metric system the USA, Myanmar and Liberia have stuck with Imperial (although since 1988 the Omnibus Act has encouraged the use of Metric in the US for trade and commerce). The reason for Metric's global popularity is that is uses the decimal system (subsets of 10). This makes it easy to calculate and more intuitive than Imperial. This is especially useful for shooters when stressed and under the pump. Imperial uses arbitrary numbers for all waypoints and this makes it more difficult to calculate.

            If all you need to do is remember common elevation and windages then there is no difference. But as soon as you combine that with range and object estimation then Metric/Mils beats imperial/MOA hands down.

            I have used both but all my scopes are Metric, 'Mils/Mils' (Mils reticles and Mils graduations).

            Mils is just so easy to use. MOA is the dark ages.

            Comment

            • LR1955
              Super Moderator
              • Mar 2011
              • 3355

              #7
              I dislike mils but mostly because I have a hard time visualizing them. This is because I grew up using inches and yards, not centimeters and meters.

              Yes, I understand the mathematics involved and yes, theoretically the metric system is easier to use because it uses ten increments which are easy to add, subtract, multiply, and divide. That doesn't mean it is easier to see or visualize.

              In field conditions it is better for a guy to go with the unit of measure he can visualize. If a person can more accurately estimate yards than meters, stay with the Imperial system! If a person can more accurately estimate in meters, go with the metric system.

              If your brain is trained to see in yards, go with minutes of angle. If your brain is trained to see in meters, go with the mils.

              Here is a good way to determine if one or the other is better for you. It deals with estimating range using a reticle calibrated in either mils or minutes. In order to estimate range using the reticle, you must know the target size in the unit of measure your reticle is calibrated for. Yards or meters. Measure a stop sign. If you automatically went to the metric side of the tape measure, you will probably like mils. If you automatically went to the inches side, you will probably like minutes of angle. Next, stand about a hundred feet from a larger object like a car or pick up truck from the side. Now estimate its length in meters and yards. If you automatically went to feet and then converted into yards, you are way better off staying with minutes of angle.

              We had to use the metric system in the military so even I picked it up but I was always able to estimate ranges and sizes in inches, feet, and yards far more accurately and faster than in meters and centimeters. I will not buy an optic calibrated in anything but minutes.

              LR55

              Comment

              • rwh
                Warrior
                • Jun 2014
                • 188

                #8
                The notion that there are 2 pi radians in a complete circle has a mathematical grace. That and the fact that the sin(x)/x approaches 1 as x approaches zero (when measuring angles in radians) makes milradians really useful when combined with the metric system, as .1 mil of arc on a 100 meter circle moves the point 1 centimeter. As cool as all that is and as elegant is it becomes for ranging a known sized object using the reticle It is also convenient to keep in mind that .1 mil radian is equal to .343755 MOA. That's really damn close to 1/3 of an MOA. In fact for many applications you can consider a .1 mil click to be equivalent to 1/3 of an MOA and do just fine. It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. I have both and do fine with either as long as I remember which scope is which when I am shooting.
                Last edited by rwh; 04-01-2017, 06:55 PM.

                Comment

                • nuthead
                  Warrior
                  • Nov 2015
                  • 138

                  #9
                  I prefer Mils - it's more intuitive for me but it isn't metric?

                  It's an angular measurement just like moa but it can be thought of as a ratio...

                  So 1/1000th of 100m is a mil, 1/1000th of 100 yards is also a mil (having said that 10cm is easier to remember than 3.6 inches!)

                  Stay up to date with all the College sports news, recruiting, transfers, and more at 247Sports.com

                  Comment

                  • LRRPF52
                    Super Moderator
                    • Sep 2014
                    • 8569

                    #10
                    Most of the people I know that shoot .50 BMG are shooting ELR. It's way overkill to shoot within 1000yds, and most people don't like their steel being hit within 1000yds.

                    High-end Laser Range Finders are prominent in ELR, as you will not get any usable measurements with reticle range estimation, unless you're ranging barn doors and vehicles that you know the measurements to, that are perfectly perpendicular to your point of view.

                    In addition to getting Mil-based scope, do yourself a huge favor and get a scope that has at least 10 Mils of elevation per turn, not a 5 Mil turret. You are going to be dialing some serious elevation for ELR, so the more Mils per turn, the better.

                    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

                    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

                    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks & chamber brushes can be found here:

                    www.AR15buildbox.com

                    Comment

                    • Klem
                      Chieftain
                      • Aug 2013
                      • 3509

                      #11
                      'nuthead',

                      You make a good point about the interchangeability of yards and metres using the Mils ratios of angle, but for the suggestion that Mils is not Metric I am going to respectfully disagree.

                      Mils, or Miliradians is an angular system of measurement derived from SI (International System of Units). SI specifies seven standards of measurement which all other measurements are derived (called SI Derived Units). The standard measurement for area is the square metre (Metric). Mils, which are 1/1000 of a Radian is an SI Derived Unit of angular measurement based on the metre...Metric.

                      Mils is Metric, in the same way that Lexus is Toyota and Maybach is Mercedes. They are all subsets of a more senior and related concept.

                      We don't use the exact mathematical subdivision of Radians because that does not lend itself to the Decimal system. The exact subdivision of the circle in radians is 6,283.185, or in other words 62,831.85 Mils. So, depending on what you are doing (shooting, artillery, mapping) and where you live we round this up or down for ease of decimal calculations. 64,000mils is a complete circle on my Silva compasses. The Russians round it down to 60,000mils for ease of use on a watch face (100 mils = 1 minute of a clock face). The Swedish use 63,000Mils and call them Streks.

                      I agree with you however, that the different conventions of rounding up or down of this Metric system of angular measurement to conform to the Decimal system are interchangeable between Imperial and Metric. 1 mil of angle subtends 1 metre of length at 1,000metres distance, and all permutations of that. But so too does 1 mil subtend 1 yard at 1,000 yards, and all permutations of that. If you are used to working in feet and yards then by all means stick to what you are familiar with, as long as you are aware that the subdivision of lengths within the Imperial system are not Decimal.
                      Last edited by Klem; 04-02-2017, 06:24 AM.

                      Comment

                      • nuthead
                        Warrior
                        • Nov 2015
                        • 138

                        #12
                        Interesting - that's the first time I've heard that

                        I stand corrected

                        Comment

                        • LR1955
                          Super Moderator
                          • Mar 2011
                          • 3355

                          #13
                          Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                          This is what I'm talking about, from the article:

                          LR52:

                          And I would have to ask why this is a factor? Somehow I doubt the ultra long range guys are under a whole lot of physical or mental stress when they compete and they aren't doing the math in their heads to get a firing solution. They use laser range finders and calculators to figure out a firing solution. They then put the elevation and windage on the optic on and shoot. Once on the target, there is little difference between a minute of angle and 1/10th of a mil. If they can visualize either for the ranges they shoot, they can fine tune their zero just as quickly and easily with one as the other.

                          As for the difference between 2 digits and four, there isn't any unless you are doing the math in your head without the aid of a cheat sheet or computer. In fact, it is faster to index 35 3/4 minutes on a optic than 35.8 mils because one dial is subdivided into four parts (1/4 minute) and the other by ten parts (.1 M). The difference in time spend is almost nothing but the potential of making a mistake increases the more digits are involved. I have yet to see either type of optic number subdivisions.

                          And to index elevation or windage, the shooter will look at the dial and turn it up or down X minutes or mils.

                          I have a feeling the ultra long range crowd using mils more than minutes has something to do with the optics they are using and how they are made more than the unit of measure. Could well be that the only optics they can find that have that much elevation capability are ones made using mils? Not sure though.

                          One thing for sure. They aren't doing the math in their head.

                          LR55

                          Comment

                          • LR1955
                            Super Moderator
                            • Mar 2011
                            • 3355

                            #14
                            Guys:

                            I just read the article. Had no clue what it said before I posted my comments. Scary how close the author of that piece is and my own comments. In fact, I had to look at the guys name to be sure it wasn't me! He, he. Actually I was wondering if this Zant guy was someone who I had trained many years ago. Not so but it is really weird is all I can say.

                            LR55

                            Comment

                            • Hoser1
                              Bloodstained
                              • May 2015
                              • 71

                              #15
                              I have used feet and inches for for most of my life as I have worked construction, I also deal with 10th's, used in surveying. I know that an average man is 70-72 inches tall. An elk is 28 inches average from brisket to top of the back. Have always estimated in yards, that's about 250 yards away, having played football and can relate distance to the field. I have read that ranging in mils and using moa hold over is possible. Not sure if this is a good idea or not. I have to believe that with all the ballistic programs out there that having to truly do math on the fly per say is a thing of the past for the weekend guy. I have a 20 moa base for the rifle, and the scope I am looking at has 80 moa of travel in elevation. Again I don't want to buy a scope that doesn't fit my needs or buy one that you have to sell the farm to get. i have to believe that a guy can range in MOA as just as he can in mil's. Just have to take the time to learn. I looked at youtube videos, but they seem to give you just enough info to confuse the hell out of a guy. After reading all the posts I have some homework to do......

                              Thanks for all the info!!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X