Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Why the love for MOA?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Scot E" data-source="post: 541462" data-attributes="member: 10832"><p>I get a kick out of listening to these answers. Not that anyone is right or wrong but the reason that most guys say they love the MOA option is the exact reason that most diehard MIL guys hate it! Most MOA'ers love it because it is "close enough" to 1 inch per hundred yards so the math is easy. MIL'ers will say the fact that you are trying to apply an linear number to an angular measurement shows that you don't really understand the correct and fastest way to use any scope in MOA or MIL. </p><p></p><p>Much of it really depends in figuring out your personal shooting style. </p><p></p><p>If you are going to use a duplex reticle then the question of MOA or MIL is much different than if you are thinking about getting a scope with a matching turret/reticle for ranging, holdover, etc. </p><p></p><p>If your system of shooting requires you to assign a linear number to a MIL or MOA then you just need to figure out which math is easier and go with it. Each guy will be different but I would argue that the math for either is doable for just about anyone with some practice. One WILL be more intuitive though. </p><p></p><p>I personally like matching reticles and turrets with some kind of hash reticle and I use the angular measurement to calculate hold and windage after my initial shot. It is much faster and eliminates a lot of confusion and chances for error when rushing to get off a shot. </p><p></p><p>I personally like the MIL system a bit better for long range stuff. I personally don't find the finer adjustment of the MOA to offer any advantage in 95%+ of my shooting. You have to get way past 800-900 yards and be a really, really good shot to notice any difference here IMO. </p><p></p><p>MIL reticles are cleaner, MIL turrets are faster to adjust with less chance for rotation error. MIL eliminates some chance of error because a MIL is a MIL is a MIL. With MOA there are a lot of varying options from manufacturers that for the long range guys can mess up long range accuracy. There are scopes with true MOA turrets and IPHY reticles but they call the reticle MOA. There are True MOA turrets with true MOA reticles. There are IPHY turrets and on and on. You have to be sure you know what you are getting then test the scope to be sure. </p><p></p><p>If you have a spotter that doesn't call misses by MOA or MIL but just how many inches you were off then MOA is sometimes easier for folks because that "linear number per MOA" concepts becomes valuable and I think for most guys the math is now faster and more intuitive. </p><p></p><p>One important thing to remember is that both MOA and MIL are angular measurements so if you are interested in learning more about the concept of ranging with a reticle you don't have to buy a MIL scope to start practicing. You can stick with what you are familiar with, MOA, and get the hang of it very quickly. Guys over at the HIDE tell newbies that MIL is a must for this and it just ain't so. </p><p></p><p>A good scope with a true MOA turret and reticle with 2 MOA hashes, or a scope with IPHY reticle and turrets with 2 inch hashes would go a long way in allowing MOA to compete with MIL in my opinion. There just aren't many good options out there that meets those specs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scot E, post: 541462, member: 10832"] I get a kick out of listening to these answers. Not that anyone is right or wrong but the reason that most guys say they love the MOA option is the exact reason that most diehard MIL guys hate it! Most MOA'ers love it because it is "close enough" to 1 inch per hundred yards so the math is easy. MIL'ers will say the fact that you are trying to apply an linear number to an angular measurement shows that you don't really understand the correct and fastest way to use any scope in MOA or MIL. Much of it really depends in figuring out your personal shooting style. If you are going to use a duplex reticle then the question of MOA or MIL is much different than if you are thinking about getting a scope with a matching turret/reticle for ranging, holdover, etc. If your system of shooting requires you to assign a linear number to a MIL or MOA then you just need to figure out which math is easier and go with it. Each guy will be different but I would argue that the math for either is doable for just about anyone with some practice. One WILL be more intuitive though. I personally like matching reticles and turrets with some kind of hash reticle and I use the angular measurement to calculate hold and windage after my initial shot. It is much faster and eliminates a lot of confusion and chances for error when rushing to get off a shot. I personally like the MIL system a bit better for long range stuff. I personally don't find the finer adjustment of the MOA to offer any advantage in 95%+ of my shooting. You have to get way past 800-900 yards and be a really, really good shot to notice any difference here IMO. MIL reticles are cleaner, MIL turrets are faster to adjust with less chance for rotation error. MIL eliminates some chance of error because a MIL is a MIL is a MIL. With MOA there are a lot of varying options from manufacturers that for the long range guys can mess up long range accuracy. There are scopes with true MOA turrets and IPHY reticles but they call the reticle MOA. There are True MOA turrets with true MOA reticles. There are IPHY turrets and on and on. You have to be sure you know what you are getting then test the scope to be sure. If you have a spotter that doesn't call misses by MOA or MIL but just how many inches you were off then MOA is sometimes easier for folks because that "linear number per MOA" concepts becomes valuable and I think for most guys the math is now faster and more intuitive. One important thing to remember is that both MOA and MIL are angular measurements so if you are interested in learning more about the concept of ranging with a reticle you don't have to buy a MIL scope to start practicing. You can stick with what you are familiar with, MOA, and get the hang of it very quickly. Guys over at the HIDE tell newbies that MIL is a must for this and it just ain't so. A good scope with a true MOA turret and reticle with 2 MOA hashes, or a scope with IPHY reticle and turrets with 2 inch hashes would go a long way in allowing MOA to compete with MIL in my opinion. There just aren't many good options out there that meets those specs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Long Range Scopes and Other Optics
Why the love for MOA?
Top