Reason to have a matched scope (MIL MIL / MOA MOA)?

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by Hudge, Jan 9, 2011.

  1. Hudge

    Hudge Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    I'm just beginning to get into long range shooting, and I wanted to lean on the advice of the guys who have been doing it for years. I've just put together a Tikka T3 Varmint .223 with a 6.5-20 50 MM Leupold Mark 4. This past week I shot my first long range targets - out to 500 yards, and it was a hoot.

    My current set-up has a MIL reticle, with 1/4 MOA Clicks. I've looked at a few threads on matching systems (MIL MIL / MOA MOA), and I don't understand the reason that's desirable. I'm going to build a drop chart out to 1000 yards (on my next rifle, not the .223), and if i have the correct drop on a chart, what's the virtue of a matched system?

    I've seen some guys saying the math is easier when using the reticle to gauge range, but at a rifle range, I'm dealing with known distances. In hunting applications, I'm using a rangefinder beyond 150 yards, so I'm wondering if it really matters? I think it's designed to make it easier without a rangefinder, but like I said, I'm new to this, so I wanted to lean on the forum's membership for advice.

    Am I missing something? Incidentally, if you were going to do a matched system, wouldn't MOA MOA be more desirable, since the incremental adjustments of 1/4 MOA are more precise than .1MRAD?

    Thanks in advance for you help.
     
  2. Loner

    Loner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    599
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    If you are looking at a correction in your reticle (FFP or SFP set to the proper power)
    from a previous bullet strike to your poa you can just dial what you see in the scope.
    2.4 mils low, dial 2.4 mils. Also the obvious of repeated use in one form or the other makes you
    that much more familiar with it. The difference in Mil and Moa turrets is not a concern as far
    as accuracy and you really are going to have a time getting used to ranging even with
    .1 mil graduations. Takes practice, If you are of a mind I suggest a program call shooter
    ready. It will give you all the practice and experience you need to learn the systems and
    is sure a whole lot cheaper than buying different scopes. And if you go moa I really suggest going IPHY, USO uses IPHY and I am sure a few others do.
    One last thing, if you shoot with a spotter, which I never have, you want his reticle graduated like your scope. Again if he calls a hit .7 mils or
    (.5 moa or whatever it is) left you want to be able to just dial in the correction, no math involved.

    ShooterReady

    (I just ordered the new version for myself, the old one quit when I went to snow leopard in osx, it has a lot of new features as well, it's been 9 or 10 years)
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011

  3. Hudge

    Hudge Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2011
    I've seen that program, and I'm glad to hear it's a good product. You also answered my question about its compatibility with Mac OS. I run Snow Leopard also. Also, a stupid question, but what is IPHY? You reference it in conjunction with US Optics. As I said, I'm new to this hobby.

    Thanks for your response - it really helps.
     
  4. Michael Eichele

    Michael Eichele Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,829
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    The nice thing about using matched systems is lets say your drop is 10.75 MOA and you like to use hold overs as much as possible. Lets say you use a NPR2 reticle which is 2 MOA per hold over. You line up on 10 MOA and guess the rest of the .75 or you can dial 3 clicks up and hold right on 10 MOA for a PRECISION shot.

    Another good reason is so that you dont have to carry 2 drop cards or charts. Even if you like to dial, there will be times you dont have the time and you will have to hold over. If your card is in MOA, how are you going to hold MILS?

    Its not that combo systems cant or dont work, they just are not optimum and lend themselves to more mistakes.

    I have two scopes. One is a lupy mark 4 with MOA dials and MIL reticle. The other is an NXS MIL/MIL. I like the matches system MUCH better even though I use the other with much success.

    As far as MILS versus MOA, it is a personal preference. I like the MIL system for various reasons. But that is just my preference.

    M
     
  5. Loner

    Loner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    599
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Shooters Moa or IPHY, inch per hundred yards is just that 1 inch per 100 yards.
    True moa is 1.047 inches per hundred yards. So you have to correct for it being off
    in the math. But again with charts and ipods it's not real important. You just need
    to know which you have.
     
  6. SBruce

    SBruce Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,786
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Hudge,

    If you're more comfortable using IPHY (I am) and your scope is supposed to be on 20X for the mils to be correct; then you can turn it down to 18X and the dots will now space 4" per hundred yards instead of 3.6 IPHY. now your dots are in the same thing as your clicks (kinda sorta).

    If your clicks are TRUE 1/4 minute, then you'd need the scope on 17X to be 4 TRUE moa between the dots.

    Just a suggestion if you want them both in the same thing.
    As already mentioned, the big benefit of having them the same is for a 2nd shot if the 1st misses (assuming you can see the impact while looking through the scope, or if you have a spotter).

    If you decide to try this, verify on an inch grid at the range. I've seen some scopes that don't zoom or have the exact power that they advertise. Some don't even have the exact spacing that they advertise.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2011
  7. Loner

    Loner Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    599
    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    An update on the new shooter ready program.

    I installed it last night, here are some changes I really like and one I dislike.
    First the option of keyboarding the crosshairs to exactly were you want them, or
    fine tune them, has been removed. Tough to drag the crosshairs exactly with the mouse on long range small targets.
    A lot of caliber, range, moving target options now. Options of different reticles and
    turrets. Hopefully an iphy reticle will be added in the future to the moa option.
    The screen can now be drug to full size from the lower rt corner. I used to strain to
    see things on the laptop before. The calculator ha been removed but of coarse the
    mac has it's own and the old one covered the screen and had to be shut off to see the
    whole target after using it.
    Scope choices offer 10x 20x and first and second focal planes
    The wind flags have been replaced by a kestrel. So weather and atmosphere are now
    incorporated. Also a timer can be enabled. Some shots are now a hit or miss as a target
    can take cover and not present a second shot.
    It's written in/for adobe flash so it has some programing limits I am sure. But overall
    you can't learn range finding and doping wind, moving target leads any cheaper or better.
     
  8. SBruce

    SBruce Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,786
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    +1 for the Shooter Ready program.:) I used the old and now the new versions too.

    I like the additions in the new version, especially the FFP 20X Moa reticle option.

    What a great way to keep our minds working (related to shooting) when we can't actually be out doing it.

    Well worth the money IMO.
     
  9. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,264
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Hudge, I don't think you're missing anything.
    If you laser range and dial, then you just ignore all the crap attached to your crosshair reticle.
    Focus instead on level and holdoff for wind (in inches).
    If holding off for elevation, then you setup your units of holdoff as applicable, and I guess the dialing units don't matter a bit(given that you're not dialing).

    I don't see where mils offer anything to civilian shooting. People stretch and stretch to make a case for usefulness with them. But they cannot range as accurately as my LRF, and they cannot hold off as accurately as I can dial.
     
  10. Jon A

    Jon A Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,092
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2001
    It matters if you use your reticle for anything. If you absolutely know you will never use it for anything, ever, then you probably won't notice much of a benefit.

    While most here do dial elevation most of the time, some of us like to hold over sometimes. Many of us like to hold wind sometimes or even all the time. So if you're using your reticle for these things, even occasionally, you need to keep or have access to all your dope in two different units. It's a PITA.

    The very first time you bolt on a scope, boresight it, take the very first shot with it at distance, measure the location of your hit with the reticle, then input that exact same value into your turrets and hit dead on your next shot you'll wonder why in the world they'd make scopes any other way.

    On the same note, if you and your buddies all have scopes like yours and you want to spot shots for them, you can tell them corrections in mils without thinking. Then they have to convert that into MOA to dial it....
    That makes absolutely no sense at all. You're saying LRF is more accurate than ranging with a reticle and dialing is more accurate than holding over.

    What does that have to do with which unit's you're using?
     
  11. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005
    MIls and MOA angle are both angular units of measure. Mils are just as benificial to a civilian shooter as is MOA
     
  12. Scot E

    Scot E Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,312
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008

    Agree with your summation and especially the quote above.

    MOA and MIL are mostly different strokes for different folks. I will say that most people find that their brains work better, or faster, with one type or the other so it may be of benefit to play with the math to see which one comes more natural. I happen to do fine with both but do run into mistakes or delays when I go back and forth between scopes that have MOA on one and MIL on the other. I will eventually get everything transitioned over to one method once I find a reticle I really like which isn't quite out there yet.