Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Long Range Hunting Mil vs MOA Reticles

OFTC member.

Ranging requires us to know the size of the item being ranged. The better the known size the better the accuracy. I can do either but MOA is far easier for me to do in my head or with a pencil or calculator without the need to know any formulas. With a range finder and a printed drop chart or portable ballistics program I just change the output to moa or mil's and off we go. What if the range finder will not work?

Most people in the US know inches. It's almost an MOA. MOA=1.047". With an MOA reticle I can range things with an MOA reticle that I know the size of in MOA and easily convert that to yards in my head. Every 100 yards is the factor I multiply by. So a known 10" target measures 2 MOA. I just devide 10"/2moa and I get 5 so 500 yards. If that 10" target measure 1.5 moa I just divide 10" by 1.5moa to get 6.66 so 666 yards. 10 inches measure 2 3/4 MOA. 10/2.750 = 3.63 so 363 yards. Plenty close enough for big game hunting.

A mil is 3.6" at 100 yards. Try this with mil's. A 10" disk measures 2 mils. Now what?

An interesting thing with an MOA reticle is if I know the range I can very accurately measure things in inches. I have to figure in the 1.047" but that is no big deal. Using my 32 power scope I measured a 1340 yards sliding glass door at 83" tall. I believe that is pretty close.

There are 39.37" in a meter, so essentially 40". A 10" disk is ~0.25 meters. 0.25 / 2 mil - 0.125, so 125 meters. Easy peasy. Exact distance is 127 meters. It's even easier if you have the size of the object in cm, since there are an even 100 cm in a meter.

That really wasn't so easy peasy. The question was in yards. Let's try that once more. A deer chest 16" mils .7 mils. How far is that in yards?

I can't really do either without a calculator but mil requires memorizing the constant value for yards of 27.778.

Mil: Target in inches / target in mils x 27.778 = yards. So (16"/.7)27.778 = 634.9 yards.

Vs.

MOA: Target in inches/MOA x 100 = yards.
(16"/2.52)100 = 634.9 yards

MOA = 1.047" or in quarter MOA is .26"
MIL = 3.6" or 1/10 mil is .36"

MOA is a smaller unit of measure making it easier to be that much more precise using the reticle. A 1.047" gap is easier to visualize in 1/4 increments than 3.6' is to visualize 1/10 increments.

Nobody is ranging either way on an animal with what can be called precision. People that talk about ranging with reticles as some sort of useful and used tool, are stuck in reading Vietnam sniper books. It don't work in the real world. When the there was no other way to guess at range (because it is a gues when you range with reticles) then milling was "used". It's only taught now as a last resort, emergency guesstimate of range so the spotter can maybe hope to pick up the trace off the miss for a second shot correction.

People that actually are prepared for milling targets on the scenario carry a Milldot Master or cheat sheet, or use their Ballistic Calculater. There isn't any hand jamming.

No, the question wasn't in yards. The question was, "now what?" after citing a 10" disk and a 2 mil measurement.

I guess to be fair, "easy peasy" depends on your mental prowess

But, to play your game and use yards is still easy. And it does not require memorizing any constants. It's as simple as this:

Size of the target in yards (or meters or inches or millimeters, or anything else) / size of the target in mils x 1000 = range in yards (or meters or inches or millimeters, or anything else)

A 16" target is a little less than half the 36" in 1 yard, or if using a calculator, 0.44 yards. So you take 0.44 yards / 0.7 mils, which is a little over 0.6 if doing the division in your head, or 0.6349 if using a calculator. Multiply by 1000 and get 634.9 yards.

Using a reticle that has 0.5 Mil increments, and further visualizing 0.1 increments from there, is plenty easy and precise.

Exactly, measuring distance with the reticle is nothing more than a mental exercise. A LRF is a must for distance shooting.

Range 'estimation' with a reticle, and range determination with a LRF. Big difference.

I shot MOA, switch to mils for a few years and went back to MOA. For me it is the better solution in that it is an easier calculation and a finer adjustment.

I'll have to politely disagree with a few folks here. With a little practice using a ranging reticle, you can get accurate enough to have sub-MOA hits at distances well past what many would consider a reasonable (ethical) hunting distance and much further on stationary targets. As some have mentioned, many tactical matches often incorporate ranging with a reticle. Some matches, like the Mammoth Sniper Challenge, will require some amount of ranging on the majority of stages.

Look at HiredGun's post above. That is great info there. When I discuss mils vs. MOA with people new to ranging reticles they jump at MOA as soon as I put the formulas on the board. The mil system certainly has its place, but the learning curve is higher for most people.

Lastly, man I haven't seen anyone toting around a mildot master in a LONG time. I must be visiting the wrong ranges.

There is no one perfect solution for everyone. Find what works for YOU and your needs. :-)

Best regards,

Mark

Mark,


There is a massive difference between ranging a 100% known sized white steel plate, and a completely unknown sized moving brown animal. Milling is one of those skills that seems good on paper, turns out to be hard in practice on a range, and nearly useless in real life. There is about a zero chance of ranging unknown, but sub MOA sized targets close enough in real life to hit them consistently. This can be proven in about 20 minutes on a range with all the dudes who think they are milling masters.