Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Polls' started by Len Backus, Sep 13, 2012.
What is your preferred scope adjustment calibration?
Come on Len, I answered the poll question and left a comment a few days ago.
Nothing has changed.
Still MOA. I grew up with MOA and I'm 60 plus so I'm too old to change and candidly, I don't want to.
I grew up with MOA and still have it on many of my small caliber guns but really prefer MIL to MOA for LR big game hunting.
I have said it many times, with MOA or MIL, if you are caught up in using the math you aren't using either system correctly. Use it as an angular measurement and not only do things become much simpler but you will begin to realize that there aren't near the differences folk say there are.
I like MIL better for these reasons.
* The standard 1/2 MIL reticle is about the perfect combination of fineness/coarseness for a reticle design IMO. At 1.8 MOA it is just a bit finer than the many 2 MOA reticle but not so busy to cause clutter like some of the 1 MOA reticles.
* When spinning turrets I like the concept of having to remember and dial for the smaller numbers that MIL provides. In my mind this eliminates some risk in making a turret rotational error or memory error that could cause a miss.
* For my style of shooting, some reticle holdover out to 4-500 yards and most of my shooting is 1/2 mile or less, the MIL turret coarseness is about a perfect blend of speed and accuracy. It isn't too coarse to cause me to be off my mark by too much which in turn allows me to get dialed in just a bit quicker.
* If you are a ballistic reticle fan at all there are way more great MIL reticle designs than there are MOA. Although thanks to NF that is changing.
* I am a strange LR shooter in that I prefer FFP scopes and many of the scopes I like have MIL reticles.
wow, 80% for moa with 120 votes cast. Maybe this means people are not liking "change" I hope so anyway.
Like my mRad's, nothing against moa I just find mRad easier since its tenths rather than quarters.
I guarantee you this has to do with everyone being able to think of 1 MOA as 1 inch. People just don't like what they don't know.
Just like how metric would be a good change for this country but everyone fights it.
Mil/Mil for me, though I have no issues with MOA. It's all math, but lots of stuff is geared torwards mils. Some quality spotting scopes have FFP Mil dot which would match my setup.
Maybe it's just me, but I really like Mil/Mill. Ranging is quick and easy. With a first focal plane reticle it works at any magnification setting too. It's just easier for me than MOA.
Mil/Mil. Wasn't trained on MOA so I pretty much could choose which system I like.
Mils just seem more intuitive, and also I see quality spotting scopes usually have mils are reticules.
Plenty of quality scopes in MOA as well & without the Hollywood tax(if that's what's adding to the cost of FFP scopes).
SFP/MOA scopes also provide finer crosshairs and adjustments.
And with LRFs, there is no more need for MILs today than there is for manual transmissions.
no preference either way, but I do like having matching turrets/reticle.
Mil/mil seems easier and more precise as mentioned above, but I'm new to LR shooting and did not have MOA concept burned into my brain, so easier for me to grasp the mil/mil concept. Both are effective for LR shooting. Good luck with whichever you choose.
Four of the six IORs are MOA/MOA the two 16Xs are MOA/MILL
The Millett is mil/mil
The Sightron is inch/mil
As long as I have my Ipod its all good
Without the Ipod MOA is the easiest to wrap my mind around