MOA to MIL - did you switch?

[dfanonymous]

Bet you money you would learn something in his class

Like what?

The guy may be a little outspoken, but I have yet to see in any of his posts where his facts are not solid.

In regards to the wind, what facts?


Both of you can start a separate thread or PM as to not derail this thread, but I'd like to hear the facts and/or see what people are betting money on. Since there are a number of threads with wind topics and generally crickets from the majority here.

 

[sturner]

My apologies

 

[User4302021]

Apparently just cummings cowboy. I think the majority of frequent viewers on here understand that moa and mrad are non- linear in math. They do not follow metric or imperial, they are as asserted, angular in nature. Mrad can be used for at 1cm for 1/10 at 100 YARDS...it just lines up that way. It's coincidence. It's .9999 at 100 METERs. 3.6 inches at 100 yards, 36 inches at 1000. It makes no difference how you use it as long as that dog hunts.

You are right, virtually any measurement that is equally divisible by 10 would line up with MILS. A MIL is nothing more than 1 "something" at 1,000 "somethings".

A MIL is:
1 inch at 1,000 inches
1 yard at 1,000 yards
1 mile at 1,000 miles
The moon is 203,000 miles away, so 1 MIL at the moon's length is 203 miles.
At 3600 inches (100 yards) it is 3.6 inches
At 1760 yards (1 mile) it is 1.76 yards (63.36 inches)

Because the metric system is a system of 10's, it is evenly divisible by 1,000's as well.

 

[flylo]

To answer the OPs question. I started with MOA then went to MIL & would not go back. If you go to Anthlons website it shows what each mark & space are so you can tell windage, holdover & range.

 

[User4302021]

Both of you can start a separate thread or PM as to not derail this thread, but I'd like to hear the facts and/or see what people are betting money on. Since there are a number of threads with wind topics and generally crickets from the majority here.

The relevent facts to this thread (MOA vs MILS...why switch?) are that longrange equals wind... wind equals math...that math is easier done in mils.

You are right again though, this subject gets crickets here most of the time. So it leads me to think that either everyone here has somehow mastered the art of wind without doing any math whatsoever, or most here don't shoot far enough for it to matter.

 

[tdot]

Well this has been interesting. I know the debate of MOA vs MIL can cause an epic poop storm and I was actually trying to avoid that. Hence the way I worded the question.

But lots of good stuff anyways and overwhelmingly I'm seeing that people who switch, don't go back. That speaks volumes to me. More so then any explanation as to why base 10 is better.

Now the one thing I hadn't considered, is staying consistent with people around me. Most of the guys around know MOA, but I also see alot of them using scopes that are 1/4" at 100 yards, and they dont seem to appreciate the difference. So not sure if I need to let that drive my decision.

 

[Hand Skills]

Mils and moa's? I use both - it's nice when my units jive with others.

The reticle design itself is more important than units to me

 

[tdot]

The relevent facts to this thread (MOA vs MILS...why switch?) are that longrange equals wind... wind equals math...that math is easier done in mils.

You are right again though, this subject gets crickets here most of the time. So it leads me to think that either everyone here has somehow mastered the art of wind without doing any math whatsoever, or most here don't shoot far enough for it to matter.

Or it's data entry into an app. I know that's what I do. Between laser range finders and ballistic apps/software it's pretty easy to get a decent amount of experience and a decently high success ratio at LR, without understanding the basis of how the output is obtained.

But understanding the math behind the solutions is something I'm becoming more interested in. It's something I want to fully understand before I allow myself to increase my personal limits on taking shots on animals.

Every single sport I'm involved in has seen technology play a pretty significant role in recent years, allowing people to obtain a perceived proficiency without really understanding basics or what the heck is actually happening.

 

[cummins cowboy]

mils relates to metric because its base 10 measurements, also 1 meter is closer to one mil. did you guys forget all this? that is why its equated to the metric system.

I make the point about mils, because for some reason many people that advocate its useage are claiming to be so much superior and are showing elitism. Its like oh I use Mils I operate on a different level, you are basically a dipchit using the MOA system. That is why I make those points. There is a failure to see that both systems have advantages in certain situations is what these people fail to see. comments like I used to use MOA but that is stupid MILS are SOOO much better, its like what in the actual hell you are talking about. They are just units of measure. use whatever works for you.

tactical elitism is real, these are the seal team 6 wanna be's. pretty easy to spot, rifles are a bloated chassis system rifle, usually have a massive quick detachable scope mount that has a ton of extra unneeded weight. The scopes are thought well if 30mm tubes are great 34mm and even 40 mm is even better. The scopes are basically hubble telescopes that are 3#'s or more. I see guys like this every time I roll up on the range.

these are the guys that spread the elitism, MOA sucks and you are inferior, all scopes that aren't FFP are junk. every miss on the target you are supposed to know it was 6/10's mil of a miss and not 8/10's of a mill miss, the reticle is a ruler I dunno maybe they do see the misses better than me because the rifle weighs in at 21#'s and uses a massive muzzlebreak for 6.5 creed. that is other nonsense annoying muzzle breaks on bloated rifles shooting moderate power cartridges like 308 or 6.5 creed.

tactical elitism, don't let anyone tell you or convince you MOA is wrong or bad.

 

[Hand Skills]

tactical elitism is real,

And identity in equipment is generally indicative of inexperience

 

[flylo]

Cummins, we just answered the OPs question & didn't make up 3#+ scopes 21# rifles & all the other nonsense you just made up. Do Mils weigh more than MOA? Have you ever tried a Mil scope? Watch the You Tubes I posted as those are made in Mil & MOA.

 

[tdot]

The real question. If I was to measure the scope of a thread drift, am I better to use MIL or MOA?

 

[milo-2]

In regards to the wind, what facts?


Both of you can start a separate thread or PM as to not derail this thread, but I'd like to hear the facts and/or see what people are betting money on. Since there are a number of threads with wind topics and generally crickets from the majority here.

Maybe I should have said the guy passes out sound and solid advice, and have yet to see him steer anyone in the wrong direction, as I know it or my opinion.

What exactly are the Facts when it comes to wind?

And what difference does it make if the thread has a few sidebars, I am positive there have been multiple posts concerning this topic also. I personally do not really care what the OP decides to do here, for the chance of me shooting around him is nil. I do however hope he makes an informed choice that he can live with. I myself would have never presented this question to a group, buy one and make choices. I don't need other people influencing or making choices for me.

One thing not mentioned yet that should have been is cost to convert. Some can shoot both, the majority want one system, it makes life easier. If he has X amount of scopes accumulated over the yrs, that cost XY, replacement costs will now be XY++++

 

[dfanonymous]

Maybe I should have said the guy passes out sound and solid advice, and have yet to him steer anyone in the wrong direction, as I know it or my opinion.

What exactly are the Facts when it comes to wind?

Barrelnut agreed with ol' Cummings up there who can't managed his own recoil, so that adds doubt to sound advise.
And the quip about dismissing what dog rocket was talking about might add more doubt depending on context unless his way is "better" without mathing.

So I don't know what you or he think are facts. Thats why I'm asking. You're agreeing with a dude about something that you PROBABLY not familiar with yourself and you SOUND like you think that doping the wind and mathing it is incorrect, on a forum that for the most part that know nothing about wind doping at long/extreme range.

I'm willing to bet dog is talking about a short wind table based on 1000y, it's fast and it works. It can be trued to you and your gun using ballistic software at first, but it accounts for elevation and MV considerations that other methods don't.