I have a number of front focal mil/mil scopes and will not buy another "tactical" scope without matching units for the reticle and adjustments, and it has to be FF. However, since most shooters in the US use inches, feet and yards what's the allure of mil/mil over moa/moa? For me the ability to see an impact and make a fast, accurate adjustment is all I need and that simply requires matching units. In addition, .25 moa offers finer adjustment than .1 mil . So why mil/mil over moa/moa?
mil/mil vs. moa/moa
- Thread starter MCMXI
- Start date
- Status
either works, but there are some minor differences. like if you wanted one turn of the knob to get your bullet past 1000yard, you would need a whole lot more detents in the same amount of space with moa compared to mil. that means your clicks will feel different. and the numbers on the turret label would be a lot smaller.
if you're dialing in the dark, or otherwise counting clicks, it's a way bigger number to count.
yeah, 1/4moa is finer than .1 mil, and i sometimes miss my 1/8moa and 1/10th moa scopes when i am shooting a small target and i have to hold a bit high or low because my calculator is telling me .25 mil for instance.
mils work just as well with inches and yards as MOA does. if you ONLY shoot at 100 yard intervals, then yes it is coincidentally easy to say 1 MOA is roughly 5 inches at 500 yards. but the only time you should be thinking that way is when you're at home getting ready to post pictures on the internet about how tiny your groups are. when you're shooting, you just think in mils or moa. i.e. "that's a 1 moa group" not "that's a 5inch group". e.g. "come right 1 moa" not "come right 5inches"
the biggest thing though is commonality with the people with whom you regularly shoot. shooting a team match where you're in moa and your buddy is in mils is gonna be suboptimal
if you're dialing in the dark, or otherwise counting clicks, it's a way bigger number to count.
yeah, 1/4moa is finer than .1 mil, and i sometimes miss my 1/8moa and 1/10th moa scopes when i am shooting a small target and i have to hold a bit high or low because my calculator is telling me .25 mil for instance.
mils work just as well with inches and yards as MOA does. if you ONLY shoot at 100 yard intervals, then yes it is coincidentally easy to say 1 MOA is roughly 5 inches at 500 yards. but the only time you should be thinking that way is when you're at home getting ready to post pictures on the internet about how tiny your groups are. when you're shooting, you just think in mils or moa. i.e. "that's a 1 moa group" not "that's a 5inch group". e.g. "come right 1 moa" not "come right 5inches"
the biggest thing though is commonality with the people with whom you regularly shoot. shooting a team match where you're in moa and your buddy is in mils is gonna be suboptimal
and you're a FFL/SOT in MT now??? cool! weren't you in tx or fl or something?Good memory! I was in Arkansas working for Remington. The FFL/SOT is a "side" business that so far has mostly served to help out coworkers and friends (but if the ATF is listening I'm trying to make money). My real job is for another firearms manufacturer.
I am no expert, but I agree. I think it would be best if scopes were to have the retical gradian marked in the same units as the clickers. Mil lines or dots with MOA clickers makes little sense to me if you could build from scratch.
That being said, I have a mil dot scope with MOA clickers since it was pretty good glass on sale.
That being said, I have a mil dot scope with MOA clickers since it was pretty good glass on sale.
The_Next_Generation
Member
Any insight as to why the military (Marines I think?) used mil-dot reticles but had MOA turrets? I believe several manufacturers offer scopes this way, the only one I've had experience with is an SWFA SS 16x42 Mil/MOA
Jenrick
Member
Mil/Mil is also very popular due to the ability to have large elevation changes in two digits rather than three. For example lets say your come up for 800 yards is 28.8 MoA, you're mil hold is 8.5. If you're doing something other than slow firing on the range, a two digit number is likely to be easier to remember.
The_Next_Generation: I agree that it's easiest to use a system that has a matching reticle and turrets, but I don't think it's a must have IF you practice with it.
As to why the military stuck with a mismatched system, I have a few theories. It is certainly workable (it's actually pretty easy once you learn the quick formulas), and there is a ton of publish knowledge on how to do so. My best guess: A mil reticle provides commonality with other MOS that measure things (like artillery and FAC's) so they can communicate with them, and it also means you can use the same syllabus to teach from for ranging. Also the Army uses meters for it's ranges (no clue why) so mils make perfect sense there again. The army in FM 23-10 (the sniper field manual) that 1 MoA at 100 meters is "about 1 inch." So they just neatly sidestepped the majority of peoples issues with Mil/MoA compatibility, as the elevation adjustment was only 1 MoA it makes sense to not worry too much about the lost precision. This approximation is only off by about 2" at 1000 meters.
Also people make a big deal about having to convert between Mil/MoA if you're going to use the fall of shot to adjust off of. Using the above approximation I can adjust off of whatever my spotter tells me. ".5 mil right" I just hold over 1/2 mil or dial in a half minute right (actually .6 minutes, but close enough), "3.5 minutes right" I just dial in 3.5 minutes (7 clicks) of right windage or hold over a hair under 1 mil. Obviously if you both have the same reticle like a sniper/spotter pair would have, it's really a non issue.
-Jenrick
The_Next_Generation: I agree that it's easiest to use a system that has a matching reticle and turrets, but I don't think it's a must have IF you practice with it.
As to why the military stuck with a mismatched system, I have a few theories. It is certainly workable (it's actually pretty easy once you learn the quick formulas), and there is a ton of publish knowledge on how to do so. My best guess: A mil reticle provides commonality with other MOS that measure things (like artillery and FAC's) so they can communicate with them, and it also means you can use the same syllabus to teach from for ranging. Also the Army uses meters for it's ranges (no clue why) so mils make perfect sense there again. The army in FM 23-10 (the sniper field manual) that 1 MoA at 100 meters is "about 1 inch." So they just neatly sidestepped the majority of peoples issues with Mil/MoA compatibility, as the elevation adjustment was only 1 MoA it makes sense to not worry too much about the lost precision. This approximation is only off by about 2" at 1000 meters.
Also people make a big deal about having to convert between Mil/MoA if you're going to use the fall of shot to adjust off of. Using the above approximation I can adjust off of whatever my spotter tells me. ".5 mil right" I just hold over 1/2 mil or dial in a half minute right (actually .6 minutes, but close enough), "3.5 minutes right" I just dial in 3.5 minutes (7 clicks) of right windage or hold over a hair under 1 mil. Obviously if you both have the same reticle like a sniper/spotter pair would have, it's really a non issue.
-Jenrick
Last edited:
My guess is because that's the way Leupold made them at the time and they had the contract to supply optics. I have quite a few Mark 4 scopes with tactical milling (TMR) or special purpose (SPR) reticles with moa elevation/windage adjustments. Mismatched reticles and adjustments is a perverse system for sure, even when shooting targets at known distances such as F-Class. I was able to send a Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm TMR Front Focal scope with M1 (moa) adjustments in for an M5 (mil) retrofit and that scope is a keeper now. Not only is it easier/faster to dial in corrections using the reticle to measure offset, but the adjustments feel more positive too. Leupold is offering the retrofit on specific scopes. Here's before/after photos.
COLOSHOOTR
Member
The military kept using the MOA turrets with the MIL reticle because US made scopes only came in MOA adjustments yet the MIL was used as a standard for measuring in NATO militaries so they used that reticle. At first nobody knew any different then it just became about $$$$ as they were not going to spend large amounts on new scopes for the bastard children of the military. It's only been recently that snipers have gotten the respect they deserve in the military. That's why snipers are finally being well equipped with new scopes, fancy new rifles and appropriate sniper calibers like. 338 Lapua allowing for extreme distance shots.
As for your measurements I'm totally lost... If you were looking through a scope with a mil reticle and you shoot a 1/2 mil right then you dial half a minute you are going to miss. At 100 yards 1 mil is approximately 3.6 inches 1/2 MOA will be approximately 1/2 inch. So you'd either have to hold over 1/2 mil on the reticle or dial 1-3/4 MOA. Now let's say we are shooting at 437 meters (since the military uses meters in common with NATO countries) you missed by 1/2 mil right and 2.4 mils low. Now quickly what do you adjust on the MOA turrets? Thats exactly why the old way was stupid.... Even if you practice the adjustments are different at all ranges you'd still have to check a conversion card, work the formula on your note pad or bust out a calculator.
Matching turrets and reticles are a must for any serious long range shooter no matter if you are using MOA or MILS. I personally use MILS myself because that's what most of the good glass came with, having matching reticles and turrets, when I started shooting long range. My shooting buddy and partner for any team shoots also operates in MILS too so we can communicate easily. The match is pretty simple with mils to especially if you shoot ranges in meters.
Last edited:
C-grunt
Member
I find mil easier than MOA because its easier for me to work with tenths than quarters.
Though either is much easier with matched turrets and FFP than back in the day.
Though either is much easier with matched turrets and FFP than back in the day.
buckhorn_cortez
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 532
One of the advantages to a Mil reticle is that you can use it to judge distances, as I'm sure you know.
Target size (in yards or meters) x 1000 / Mils read = yards (or meters) to the target.
All of my scopes are Mil / Mil so that the adjustments are consistent with the reticle.
Target size (in yards or meters) x 1000 / Mils read = yards (or meters) to the target.
All of my scopes are Mil / Mil so that the adjustments are consistent with the reticle.
Mil/mil is best because it is the most popular, has the most scope offerings, and has the most published info on how to use it. Functionally, Moa/moa is just as good. The only issue is a miss-match reticle to turret, but those days are largely behind us.
With moa you also have several different scales.
SMOA or IPHY and you have MOA
The trouble comes from manufacturers claiming moa adjustments, when in reality they are IPHY.
IPHY is shorthand for inch per hundred yards.
Mil also has to deal with this, but almost the entire industry has agreed on a set mil value. That makes it easier on us shooters.
SMOA or IPHY and you have MOA
The trouble comes from manufacturers claiming moa adjustments, when in reality they are IPHY.
IPHY is shorthand for inch per hundred yards.
Mil also has to deal with this, but almost the entire industry has agreed on a set mil value. That makes it easier on us shooters.
COLOSHOOTR
Member
Well just as true MOA is 1.047" at 100 yards and many scopes round out the MOA value to 1" at 100 IPHY as pdd614 pointed out the mil system also has different values based on the manufacturer.
Most manufacturers have gone or are soon going (as is case with March scopes) to a true mil of 6283 parts of a circle or 1/1000th of a radian. Other mil scopes use the military mil of 6400 that is a rounded up version of the mil for artillery use. The Leupold military scopes of the past use the 6400 mil for the reticle. Sometimes you hear the different mil scales referred to as Army mil (6400) or USMC mil (6283). You'll just need to be aware of what scale you have but the standard has become the true mil aka the USMC version and that's what 98% of mil/mil scopes come in now.
You can range with a MOA reticle as well but I believe the mil reticles tend to be better for ranging as many have sections broken down to .2 or even .1 mil markings for precise range estimation. In a previous post buckhorn_cortez mentioned one formula for mils that works well. Another good one for us on the standard measuring system is: Target height (in inches) x 27.77 / Height of target (in mils as measured in reticle)=distance in yards. The formulas are even more simple if you use the metric system instead.
Most manufacturers have gone or are soon going (as is case with March scopes) to a true mil of 6283 parts of a circle or 1/1000th of a radian. Other mil scopes use the military mil of 6400 that is a rounded up version of the mil for artillery use. The Leupold military scopes of the past use the 6400 mil for the reticle. Sometimes you hear the different mil scales referred to as Army mil (6400) or USMC mil (6283). You'll just need to be aware of what scale you have but the standard has become the true mil aka the USMC version and that's what 98% of mil/mil scopes come in now.
You can range with a MOA reticle as well but I believe the mil reticles tend to be better for ranging as many have sections broken down to .2 or even .1 mil markings for precise range estimation. In a previous post buckhorn_cortez mentioned one formula for mils that works well. Another good one for us on the standard measuring system is: Target height (in inches) x 27.77 / Height of target (in mils as measured in reticle)=distance in yards. The formulas are even more simple if you use the metric system instead.
Jenrick
Member
COLOSHOOTR: Good catch, sorry that should be 1.5 minutes not .5 minutes (and it's actually 1.6 not .6). I also agree that having matching systems is a good thing, but not a show stopper between a shooting pair. IF they have some practice with it.
-Jenrick
-Jenrick
MachIVshooter
Member
Angular measurements work fine with any linear unit. Yards & mils or degrees and meters, all the same. It really comes down to preference. Some people prefer base-10 systems, but I'm so used to sexigesimal from the shooting sports to architecture and machining, it just comes more natural to me. Of course, in machining, we typically use decimal divisions of degrees, not arcminutes and arcseconds.
The only way in which the metric system is easier is for quick calculations at ranges that aren't round numbers, since it's just a matter of moving the decimal around in a base-10 system. A milliradian is 1/1000 of your distance to target, whether that is yards or meters. If using meters, you can quickly calculate that 1 mil at 386 meters is .386 meters. It's a little more math to turn .386 yards into inches, so you'll typically end up rounding; .386 is a little more than 1/3, and 1/3 of a yard is 1 foot, so we go with "a little over a foot".
Of course, none of your mil scope adjustments are finer than one place right of the decimal anyway, so whether you were using meters or yards, .386 mil becomes an adjustment of .4 mil.
Blade First
Member
I'm going to guess that you can give me 'pi' to ten places quicker than it took me to type this reply.
No wonder you have the patience to produce amazing scale replicas...you speak the sometimes foreign language of numbers. Welcome, sir!
No wonder you have the patience to produce amazing scale replicas...you speak the sometimes foreign language of numbers. Welcome, sir!
MachIVshooter
Member
How about 22/7
If you're doing the math in your head, it's much easier to find with the approximate fractional formula, and then convert the product to decimal if necessary. 22/7 is not accurate if you're trying to calculate with a high degree of precision, but it's a close enough approximation for most practical applications outside of the sciences:
3.2" diameter circle
22/7: 9-3/7, or 10.057"
π: 10.053"
Being off by ~0.004" for every 10" of circumference doesn't matter if you're trying to figure out how long a ribbon to cut to wrap a round container or how many times your tire rotates in a mile, since odds are your error in radius/diameter measurement are far, far greater than the error of using 22/7 instead of π.
That said, it is a 4.5 arcminute/1.3 milliradian error, so it does matter for shooting.
Of course, these days we all have smart phones on us 99% of the time, and can get free scientific calculator apps, so I honestly don't do pi in my head very often anymore.
All of this high school math is interesting, but for all practical purposes there are two uses for a reticle with mil or moa stadia.
1. To quickly measure (estimate) the offset between POA and POI (and this is why matching mil/mil or moa/moa is so much better than mismatched reticle/adjustments)
2. To estimate the range to an object which requires some knowledge of the size of the object (the error here can be significant)
I find #1 to be the most useful since I have a very good range finder.
1. To quickly measure (estimate) the offset between POA and POI (and this is why matching mil/mil or moa/moa is so much better than mismatched reticle/adjustments)
2. To estimate the range to an object which requires some knowledge of the size of the object (the error here can be significant)
I find #1 to be the most useful since I have a very good range finder.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
