- Joined
- May 2, 2001
- Messages
- 7,526
What is your preferred scope adjustment calibration?
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
What is your preferred scope adjustment calibration?
- Thread starter Len Backus
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
SidecarFlip
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Scot E.
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.
Scot E.
Broz
Well-Known Member
wow, 80% for moa with 120 votes cast. Maybe this means people are not liking "change" I hope so anyway.
Jeff
Jeff
Niles Coyote
Well-Known Member
Like my mRad's, nothing against moa I just find mRad easier since its tenths rather than quarters.
webs
Well-Known Member
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.
Just like how metric would be a good change for this country but everyone fights it.
SMF
Member
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.
Steve
Steve
mill rad
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
marinetowgunner
Well-Known Member
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.
