Are you guys using moa or mil scopes

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by jcvibby, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. jcvibby

    jcvibby Non-Profit Sponsor

    Messages:
    615
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    I know the tactical guys like using mil but what do the long range hunters like using??? Don't know if it matters but for the most part I will be using a LRF so my distances will be known and aside from long range hunting I will be using this scope for some mild matches and such. Thanks guys
     
  2. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005

    Most here use IPHY or MOA turrets, I am slowly but surely converting to Mil's in my scopes. Mil reticle and Mil turrets. Once I tried Mils I found hat I like them better
     

  3. Ernie

    Ernie SPONSOR

    Messages:
    2,844
    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    I prefer MOA myself
     
  4. SANDRAT

    SANDRAT Member

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    I have a 338 EDGE,am going back and forth if I want to use MIL or MOA,for the MIL I have an IOR 3-18 3rd gen plus a Swaro LRF that ranges in meters if I want,the other set up is a Sightron SIII and I have a Leica LRF yardage model.Big thing I like on the IOR is that the turrets are meant to be used wheareas the Sightron seems to be a Zero then use the reticle to compensate.Both seem to be a really good set up,may just need to toss a coin
     
  5. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005
    Why are the range finders in different units?
     
  6. FEENIX

    FEENIX Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,806
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    ... or maybe the scopes' (except for Huskemaw) are different from the rangefinders' units :rolleyes::):D:cool:
     
  7. LouBoyd

    LouBoyd Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    770
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    Rangefinders are available which measure in yards, meters, and feet. Use whatever you're comfortable with. Mils, MOA, yards, meters or feet don''t matter if you know what you have, how to use it, and understand the ballistic calculations. cards for mills or MOA or the number of keystrokes on a calculator are the same complexity. They're all useless if you don't know how to use them.
    A ballistic reticle is no more complicated in meters or yards, but what you're more familiar with will make give fewer mistakes. It's not unusual for someone to post that brand xxxx rangfinder they tested has a 9% range error because they didn't realize it was set to read in meters instead of yards or vice versa.

    The mil-dot system was conceived to allow range calculations to be made mentally, but nearly no one in the US uses mil-dots in the way they were originally conceived. That's because people don't think in decimal yards in the US. Europeans do think in decimal meters. The "right" way to use a mil dot scope is just to think "how far apart are adjacent dots on the target?". Then just move the decimal point 3 paces and that's it's distance in the same units. Unfortunately that doesn't give useful results using inches, feet, yards. How useful is it to say the dots appear to be 25 inches apart on the target so the target is 25000 inches away. That's correct, but what person in the US thinks of 25000 inches as 694 yards without doing calculations?

    Mil dot works nicely for Europeans because they think in millimeters, centimeters, and decimeters. Americans think in inches and feet and yards , but 1/1000 or 1/00 or 1/10 of yard means little or nothing to most Americans. It's probably easier though to learn to think in decimal yards than to do calculations every time. Using MOA doesn't help. There is nothing special about a minute of arc. It's a relic of navigation and astronomy from dividing a circle into 360 parts and that in 60 parts. It is very close to the angle the Earth rotates in 4 seconds of time with respect to the rest of the universe.. There are exactly 21600 MOA in a circle, but there's nothing special about that number for doing range calculation. There are exactly 2 PI *1000 milliradians (Mils) in a circle. That's a little over 6283 mils in a circle but it's an irrational number which cannot be exactly represented by a fraction or decimal number. For most Americans doing range calculations in mils or moa makes little difference and are equally easy to learn.

    Having 1/10 mil clicks or 1/4 MOA clicks shoudn't make much difference.. You still have to learn to use either on. Calculators can handle either with a tiny software change. Brains take some time to learn either system. There may be some advantage to having the same units for clicks and reticle markings. There can be advantage to having them different too.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2009
  8. 436

    436 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    648
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Leupold TMR with moa. Super reticle
    436
     
  9. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005
    My question is dirrected to the poster that had a Leica that ranged in yards and a Swarovski that ranged in meters?

    To range with a Mil or MOA reticle one must know the size of the target being ranged. No difference there.

    MOA as wells mil's are both angular. MAO is 1/60 of one degree. A mill is the distance of a substention of an arc. 1 MOA is 1.0472" (rouned off) per0 yards, a Mill is 3.6" per 100 yards. MOA is divided into 4 parts a Mill is divided into 10 parts..1/4 MOA is .2618" per 100 yards, 1/10 of a Mill is .36" per 100 yards

    The mil system is a easy for americans,niether is complicated in any manner. The biggest difference is with a 300 grain SMK at Sea Level I only need 6.9 Mils to get to 1,000 yards instead of 22.5 MOA
     
  10. MachV

    MachV Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,385
    Joined:
    May 31, 2001
    Are you guys using moa or mil scopes

    The short answer is yes with a couple of other options thrown in just to make it interesting:rolleyes:
    Three scopes are set up with mills or ½ mills as it where. I just double check the ballistic charts and tape it to the stock for referencing.
    Three different scopes are set up for MOA (I actually prefer MOA) Just like the mill scopes there is a double checkt ballistic chart taped to the stock only this one reads in MOA instead of mills.
    Then there are a couple of proprietary reticles that are=You guessed it= test fired for accuracy and the yardage that corresponds to the hash marks are taped to the stock.
    There are a ½ dozen fixed fine duplex 12x Leupolds that get used quite a bit that are 2MOA from x hair to thick post. So past 4MOA the charts have to be figured out in inches and then taped to the stock.
    Life would be a little simpler if I could just aford to put NFs with R1 reticles on everything :D
     
  11. rjackh

    rjackh Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    114
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2009
    most ppl ive heard of use mil/mil. i think as long as turrets and reticle match up, you cant really go wrong with either. id say its personal preference.

    there are online like tutorial type things where you can practice using mil dot scopes, you could probably use those to test mil/mil or moa/moa to see what you like better
     
  12. SANDRAT

    SANDRAT Member

    Messages:
    9
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    The Leica is only availible in a yardage model or meters,you can only have one or the other.The Swarovski can be switched between yards and meters.

    Shooting and hunting by myself, I prefer the mil system.Most of my friends use moa.For spotting purposes it can get a little confusing.Rockchucks in the springtime are great for practice though.
     
  13. sp6x6

    sp6x6 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,043
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2009
    Both of my Leicas can be used in yards or meter, there is a dial switch in battery compartment for the desired setting
     
  14. john g duvall

    john g duvall Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    61
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2009
    Absolutely Correct!! Right On!! Learn both...you might need both some time in the near future.