Hello I need some help The few NF dealers around my area I talked to all say “mill what?” when I ask them about the mrad turret scopes NF makes, typical a sales men has no Idea what I am talking about. Any ways I am thinking about buying a milllradian click value scope either a night force NXS 3.5-15x50 or an IOR 2.5-10x42 that,s not the problem both are excellent makes but before I pour that much cash down on a scope using a system I am not familiar with, I wanted to see what some people who have used the mil/mil combination have to say about it from what I read its sounds awesome.
Before I ever bought my first NF scope I called them to ask about this very question. I had always used nothing but MOA and I wanted to ask the experts if I should consider a Mil. Rad. scope. I told them I would be willing to suffer thru any learning curve there would be if there would be a benefit to the suffering. They told me to stay with MOA. I figured they knew alot more than me and MOA is what I have in everything.
I just bought a mil/mil 3.5-15x50 NXS. My reasoning was this: Everyone uses mil based reticles. You can get MOA reticles, but they're the exception. Even those with MOA knobs usually still have MIL reticles. So... if I ever get into shooting with a spotter, 95% he'll have a mil based reticle in his scope or binoculars. Having the same measurement base as my spotter would make things simpler. Sure you can convert, but why if you don't have to? And I of course wanted the same knobs as reticle, so mil/mil it was. The only thing I can possibly see as a downside to mil/mil is that your adjustments (.1 mrad) are a little more coarse compared to .25 MOA, but I don't think the extra 0.11"/100 yards will be a big deal.
Location: The rifle range, or archery range or behind the computer in Alaska
Re: Millradian click value scopes
It really boils down to personal preference. With the use of hand held targeting software, it really doesnt matter if you go Mil/Mil or MOA/MOA. I personaly like the Mil/Mil system. I hate the .047 difference between MOA and inch (ie: .25 MOA is not .25") Which at a few hundred yards isnt huge but at 1K it is if you forget to convert your inches of drop to MOA before dialing clicks or MOA youre screwed. Sometimes shooters dont use targeting software in the field and use a range card. Most shooters will have their cards set up for MOA or click numbers etc....The shooter then has to calulate something different when faced with a sloped shot. The answer is usually in inches. Then the shooter has to figure out how many clicks to compensate. A shortcut is to divide the inches of drop by the click value of the scope and then divided by the number of clicks by however many clicks his scope uses for 1 MOA. For example the MOA of 350" of drop at 1K can be found the following method.
350" / 1.047 / (range/100) = 33.5 MOA Alot of shooters forget or dont even notice that 1" is not 1 MOA. The mistake is 1.5 MOA. At 1K that is pretty significant. Around 15". Then in the heat of the moment a shooter often forgets if they multiply or divide the inches by 1.047. Use the wrong one and youre really screwed.
To me the mil system is just simpler. I know that if my bullet drops 350" at 1K I can take 350 and divide by 3.6 (3.6 is .36 X (range/100)) which equals 97 clicks. Since my scope = 10 clicks per mil, I can divide 97 by 10 for 9.7 Mils. Also for ranging, I find the math much easier to deal with using the mil system. Especially since most of my target critters are 18", the constant there is 500 (27.778 * 18" = 500) Then divide 500 by the mil value the target takes up and there is your yardage. There are similar formulas for ranging with MOA. I just never remember what the sequence is or the constant whereas I do for the Mil system. Also for the calibers I use, I find the Modified mil reticles (mil + .5 mil) work better for matching my trajectories than an MOA reticle. IE: 400 yards = 1 Mil, 500 = 2 Mil, 600 = 3 Mil, 700 = 4.5 Mil etc....
Again it is a personal preference and if you do use hand held targeting software in the field, it really is NO issue which one you use.
Thank you for responding every one I went over to the other form mil vs moa and read what people said over there to me it just sounds like it makes things a bit more simple I don't think the switch will be all that tough when the math is easier and can be done faster which when technology fails in a stressful situation simple is better. as to B23 post I would be weary of trusting any sales rep you don't have to be passionate about what to sell or know more than what a piece of paper tells them to say to sell it in my experience I have met very few sales people who didn’t try to feed me a load of crafty Bull S*%t to make a sale always do research in detail before you buy you will save your self a lot of money and frustration by knowing more about the item than the person selling it.
1. MILs are for ranging
2. MOA is for adjustment
3. IPHY has nothing to do with either(but works just fine in America)
4. MOA is higher in resolution than MILs. IPHYs are higher resolution still.
It is always a stretch to fault conversions, because it isn't rational to convert in the field anyway.
Nor does it make sense to rely on a 'spotter' to define your misses.
Laser range it, stalk within your single CBS capability, dial in the software calculated clicks, focus, mind your level, hold in the wind/mirage, and make the shot. 1 SHOT
And if you miss,, back up & figure out where you're seriously screwing the pooch.
Well, thats what I do
Just seems the MILS/MOA/IPHY thing amounts to Chevy-vs-Ford thing -when it shouldn't matter really.