MIL or MOA? Why? DATA, not a DEBATE!

I use both all of the time. The main thing to remember is to make sure that the turrets match the reticle. So if you use MOA, make sure the turrets are MOA. The same is true with MILRAD (MILDOT), if the reticle is in MILRAD then make sure the turrets are MILRAD also. And while I am old school and prefer a true MILDOT scope with MILRAD turrets. I can use a MOA reticle just as easy.

Use the one that you are most familiar with. I'm more comfortable with MILRAD scopes since I was in the military but can use MOA scopes just fine.

I have quite a few MILDOT scopes both SFP and FFP. All but one (old Bushnell Elite 4500) have MILRAD turrets. The last scope that I just bought is a Swampfox Patriot FFP 6-24x50 that has a MOA Christmas tree reticle with MOA turrets. I also have a Swampfox Tomahawk SFP 1-4 LPVO with their Guerrilla Cross MOA reticle. Both Swampfox scopes are on AR22 rifles.

As you know FFP and SFP both have their positives and negatives. Again go with which ever one you prefer the most.

Comparing the two is really indicative of a failure to understand the two.

Folks need to speak the language native to their location. Only in the most rare of occasions will one language have an objective advantage over another, other than location compatibility, so it’s foolish to pretend Spanish is better or worse than Portuguese. If you’re in Brazil, you speak Portuguese and conversations carry on, if you’re in Mexico, you speak Spanish, and conversations also carry on.

Any differentiation between the math used for either is worthless pontification - it’s like discussing techniques doing division mathematics on a slide rule when you’re trying to count chickens...

My only use for a scope sight has been on known distance ranges. I am as well off with a plain reticle and repeatable MOA adjustments.

Varminterror brings up a very good point that I forgot to mention. It is easier to use what everyone else is using around you. Having a person that uses MILRAD mostly try to spot for someone using MOA could cause some confusion.

I prefer Mil based with plain Mildot reticle. It's just easier to work with base 10.

I still have a few 2FP MIL/MOA scopes in operation; NXS, Mk4. Sans a FFP Primer Reticle Loopy Conversion in MIL/MOA, everyone else that is LR & competition based is MIL/MIL. No MOA/MOA. The primary motive to switch was from participating in team shooting events, communication and sharing dope. Also, to be more like the cooler kids on the line.

MIL/MOA scopes work fine but it is better and easier (at least for me) to use either MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA. The Swampfox Patriot is the first MOA/MOA scope with something other than a traditional/duplex or BDC reticle. I figured I would give it a try. All of my other scopes are MIL/MIL besides the Swampfox Tomahawk and the few 22 rimfire duplex reticle scope I still have.

I think it all depends on you. As you already mentioned, they are both different means to an end. I like both for different jobs. I'm a pretty versatile type of guy, so I can keep their characters separate in my head. I like MOA for hunting 300yds and closer because I can judge target size and hold over fairly easily at those ranges without dialing , and if I'm off by an inch it probably won't matter. If I want to print 3" groups at 500yds, then I want Mil.

Data?

How so?

It’s really just akin to converting from grams to ounces, or vice versa.

I have scopes with both. All i care about. Is they zero and stay zeroed. I didn't even know the difference. Until i decided to look it up one day. I like scopes with the BDC markings. If their in mills or MOA. Im fine with both.

As @Varminterror and others have said it's just units. Mil vs MOA is akin to measuring is US customary vs SI units. You can build up a good working feel for any of those units. I have scopes in both system. Both of my longer range competition guns are Mils but that is as much because I prefer Mils slightly as to being what nearly everyone else is using in those sports.

I would prefer to use all mil, but I got a smoking deal on some Bushnell Engage moa based scopes and ended up with moa on all three of my long range 22LRs.
It's really worked out pretty good the drop tables are so different between RF and CF and strelok does the math anyway. One plus is the hash marks are 2 moa which would be busy on a CF are great for RF that gets blown all over here in KS.

Legionnaire said:

The data point is simply your preference, supplemented by any reason for that preference. As I said initially, I'm not looking to debate the question; I'm just interested in knowing your preference if you have one.

Click to expand...

To simplify my previous two posts. I prefer MIL/MIL scopes simply because I have more time and experience using them.

I don't pretend to be a long ranger shooter, or even to know that much about it. So for me, the simple thing to do is set my scope and learn the drops.

However, aside from a reasonably accurate BDC reticle, I'd prefer MOA over MIL. I played with a MIL Dot reticle, and tried ranging with it. But then converting to MOA for the turrets was a pain in the butt. Add to that the approximation of 1 MOA to 1" at 100 yards and MOA just seems easier than than 3.6" to 1 MIL at 100m (or whatever it is).

I'm sure it's a fine "language" if you immerse yourself into it. But it's simply more trouble than it's worth for me.

WrongHanded said:

I don't pretend to be a long ranger shooter, or even to know that much about it. So for me, the simple thing to do is set my scope and learn the drops.

However, aside from a reasonably accurate BDC reticle, I'd prefer MOA over MIL. I played with a MIL Dot reticle, and tried ranging with it. But then converting to MOA for the turrets was a pain in the butt. Add to that the approximation of 1 MOA to 1" at 100 yards and MOA just seems easier than than 3.6" to 1 MIL at 100m (or whatever it is).

I'm sure it's a fine "language" if you immerse yourself into it. But it's simply more trouble than it's worth for me.

Click to expand...

And that is the reason why most people prefer to have the turrets match the reticle - MOA/MOA or MIL/MIL. And most manufacturers have finally started making their scopes so that the turrets match the reticle.

Varminterror said:

Folks need to speak the language native to their location. Only in the most rare of occasions will one language have an objective advantage over another, other than location compatibility

Click to expand...

This! And since i mostly talk to My Self, and myself speaks MOA.....thats what we use.

I grew up with MOA and tend to think that way. I recently got my first FFP MIL/MIL but haven't used it as intended yet. I do have a scope with MIL turrets and another Mil Dot/MOA turrets. I have gotten by by using the approximation of .1 MRAD = 1/3 MOA, seeing as .1 MRAD = 0.36 MOA.

So my question is regarding the actual value of MOA clicks. Are they actually based on the true value of 1 minute of angle (1.047" @ 100 yds.) or is it the commonly accepted 1" at 100 yds.? My assumption of 1/3 MOA, or 0.3 MRAD = 1.08" is actually closer to the true value of 1 MOA than the commonly accepted 1".

I realize that you would have to hold pretty hard to tell the difference but am just pointing out that conversion between the 2 isn't that difficult.

Googling Mil. "Mil stands for milliradian. It does not mean "military," though that is a common misconception. A milliradian is a measurement of an angle within a circle. To understand how a milliradian is measured, some trigonometry is required ....."

Ahhhhhhh! "... some trigonometry is required ..." Oh, No! I am suffering flashbacks to high school math class. Be still my pounding heart. Let me catch my breath. Got it.

A mil is basically 3.6 MOA. I can start to wrap my brain around that. Wouldn't that make a thousand mils 3600 MOA or 60 degrees? 60 MOA = 1 degree.

But NATO says there are 17.777778 mils in one degree which would make 60 degrees equal 1,066.66668 mils. But that makes a milliradian 3.438 MOA not 3.6 MOA.

Forget milliradian for a minute. What is a radian? "... a unit of plane angular measurement that is equal to the angle at the center of a circle subtended by an arc whose length equals the radius or approximately 57.3 degrees ..."
I think pi (3.14159 to infinity) is involved. A radian is a section of a circle whose arc is egual in length to the radius, or, shaped like a slice of pi.

OK, I recall now that MSgt Jones said milliradians were used in artillery sights, and were adopted from the French after France went metric. OK. I'll agree that the French 75 (Canon de 75 modèle 1897) is credited as the granddaddy of modern artillery. However. Using mils for riflesights sounds like venturing into NFA destructive device territory not to mention requirements for user certification for the international military arms trade.

[lame attempt at humor]

While i enjoyed that....