Which is better 1/8 MOA or 1/4 MOA

Discussion in 'Long Range Scopes and Other Optics' started by nathank, Jan 20, 2009.

  1. nathank

    nathank Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    276
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    which is the better choice for long range shooting?
     
  2. Boss Hoss

    Boss Hoss Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,843
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    OK --MY FLAME SUIT IS ON!! This is the truth of the matter but it depends on the rifle and the shooter. Most people do not have the skills nor the rifle and or ammunition that will fully realize the advantage to having a .2 MOA adjustment.

    If you do have the ability to take advantage of this then by all means it is a good thing!
     

  3. pinshootr

    pinshootr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    139
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    I think the !/4 is better because it has more adjustment MOA than the 1/8 so it is better for long range lightbulb
     
  4. gamedog

    gamedog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    591
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    I like the 1/4" moa better. Less turret adjustment required.
     
  5. Coues Sniper

    Coues Sniper Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    309
    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2007
    Another vote for 1/4
     
  6. 30-338

    30-338 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    214
    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2008
    .25 MOA for field use and .125 for target, bench, varmint....30-338
     
  7. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,269
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    I varmint hunt with Mk4 scopes, and if offered, I would choose 1/8moa clicks for elevation and adjust my drop cards.

    I spin the knob for every shot anyway, so I don't see where it hurts to have the finer adjustment.
     
  8. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005
    Between the 2 I like 1/4 MOA for a long range hunting scope, the best IMHO is 1/10 of a Mill. ( 1 CM) This gets you to distnace quickly.
    Example at sea level with my 338 Lapua I can get to 1,000 yards with 6.9 Mills sighted in 2" high at 100 yards.
    Useing MOA it takes 23.75 my S&B PM11 has 14 Mills per revolution and that gets you a lot of distance.
     
  9. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,269
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    Might as well go 1/2moa or even 1moa if your just lookin for big adjustments.

    A MIL is 3.437747MOA
    So even 1/10th clicks are .34moa

    Aren't MILs for ranging?
     
  10. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005
    IMHO a laser is for ranging. I can also tell from your post that you have never used a scope that adjust in CM (1/10 of a Mill). I thought as you do untill I used one.
     
  11. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005

    Why do you feel the need to turn Mills into MOA? All one needs to do is to set your ballistics targeting software to print out your drops correction in centimeters (1/10 of a mill). you only need to know how many adjustments that you need, not how many MOA's, unless your scope adjusts in MOA.

    I own 5 Nightforce NXS scopes that adjust in MOA and 2 S&B scopes that adjust in mills and I like the Mills better.
     
  12. Mikecr

    Mikecr Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,269
    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2003
    It's true I've never used MILs. My conversion to MOA was for comparison of resolution described.
    I agree completely about laser ranging. So I see no need for FFP scopes, MILs on reticles, nor MILs in adjustment.


    Ideal IMO is SFP scopes, medium-fine crosshairs, and IPHY across the board.
    That just seems simple to me.
    But I'll use what I can get...
     
  13. jwp475

    jwp475 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,595
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2005
    It really matters not how a scope adjusts as far as getting on target, as long as you know which one your scope adjusts in you are good to go IMHO . A mill or MOA or IPHY yards reticule is use full for drop correction if time is of the essence IMHO, but certainly not a necessity.