I believe I comprehend the basic logistic difference between the Mil-Dot & the Moa. What is interesting to me is the differing value of the two.

1 Moa = 1" @ 100 yds
1 Mil = 3.6" @ 100 yds

Would it be prudent to choose a mil-dot reticle having no previous experience but possessing the will to learn it? While MOA would be a clearly simple choice due to familiarity I really like the simplistic uncluttered view of the mil-dot.

OR, have we already beat that horse?

Either/or.

1/4 moa and 1/10 mil are the most common click values. Not much difference in the real world.

I've switched over to mils after using moa for a long time, kinda like the mil system better.

I have a scope with mil dots. They are not used for ranging. The scope is on my varmint rifle and the mil dots are used as additional sighting spots. I know on 20X, which is my preferred magnification for varmint hunting the first dot up is dead on at 100 yards. The crosshair is on at 200 yards the first dot down works for 300 yards and 400 yards. The next one down works for 500 yards.

Ranging with mil dots when we have great range finders seems silly.

What if you forget your RF........

Range finders don't always work, especially on the open plains.

Some of my longest shots have been ranged with mil-dots.

What if God changed His mind. We would not exist.

antelope_sniper,



Mil dot never work for me. I don't do that. I didn't suggest others not use mil dots to range.



You are most definitely better at that than me. My longest shot was ranged with my eyes as a guess. It happened prior to my purchasing a Leica 1200 about eight or ten years ago. I guessed a rock chuck feeding directly away was about 550 yards. The 75 grain A-Max entered the rump and exited the chest.

After being a die hard MOA user and then being forced to switch- mils all the way. Stop thinking in inches. It's just numbers on paper and a turret and tenths are easier to think in than quarters. The reticle is a ruler. All you do is spot the impact, "read" the correction with the reticle and dial or hold it.



As for ranging with a reticle..... No. At least not with any semblance of accuracy. Has it been done? Yes. Can it be done? Yes. However, batting averages will be mighty low.

Very true....

In a bind you could use the mil reticle to help with range estimation, but you will need to apply yourself....carry on!

Great input. I may buy one of each to decide which I prefer.

Well, a guy at least needs to know how to do it.

In the field on game during conditions when a rangefinder won't function (when it's raining, snowing, or just a mist in the air) is an example. We "know" the size of the target as approximate and can at least use the ranging function on our ballistic program. I know I would in those conditions on a hunt if I saw something that I wanted to shoot.

As far as accuracy, I guess you'd be surprised since you say it can't be done with any.

At just about every Tac match in the country there will be a stage that requires the shooter to range targets without the use of a laser rangefinder. We do it frequently at our monthly local shoots as well. The stage may be one that no shooting even takes place; everyone just lays down and does the exercise on the targets and records their calculation on paper and hands it in as homework. It's graded and scored.

The guy who won the stage at the SHTRC ranged every target within a couple of yards.

Sometimes we have to range under time then engage under time to be graded

You think I haven't milled targets?



Should you know how to do it? Of course. But animals aren't steel plates that are exactly measured and known. Even during matches where the plate size is exactly known hit rates on 8-12 inch targets is pretty low.

The only thing the military uses mil ranging for is emergencies. It works better on humans being the we are tall and therefor have room for error.

What's the error if the deer we think is 17in back to brisket, is really 19 inches and we mill it at 1 mil? Answer- far from anything resembling accurate.

50 yards and .3 mil with my .264.

If it's ranged at a mil and I held in the center of the target, at .3 mil error (Max for your example) it would still result in a dead deer

I doubt anyone would think that a 50 yard ranging error is sufficient at 500 yards. Some rounds will be able to swallow the error and must won't. That all goes into the shot process. Those that shoot and compete should get that, but most don't.

The point being that reticles are not principally for ranging, instead they are for holds.

remember this is a hunting forum. its different than at the range shooting at known distances. maybe your shooting position might also prevent you from keeping your scope on target enough after the shot to be able to use the reticle as a ruler. and if its a ruler we are talking about a MOA based reticle like the MOAR works too.

for me its easier in the field to measure the size of rocks or other targets that I might be shooting at with a MOA reticle.

True dat

It's time for a rcamuglia/Formidilosus unknown distance shootout! Kidding...

So - if there's an 18" (horns not body) antelope at an unknown range, but out like 600-700 meters, no LRF handy. A guy is better off mils, moa, FFP, or SFP?

Get closer.

Really.

You might have already beat it.........but MOA is not the same as IPHY. this topic is flawed from the start.

None of it matters. In that situation you're going to miss. A lot.


Both MOA and mils work. Just that people pick up how to run it with mils faster and easier. Probably because they aren't trying to constantly equate everything to inches.


Both work. Both are effective, one is just about 50 times more common and has the benefit of being broken down into tenths which our brain prefers.

Thanks. Can you recommend some kind of 'primer' type info on using a mil/mil setup, hunting related preferably?

As long as you have your drop chart in mils, reticle in mils, and turret in mils, life is good, and simple. Same-same for MOA.

Lase, dial, shoot.

The reticle is just a different 'ruler' to measure corrections that can either be applied to the turrets, or held via reticle holdoff, without the need to convert any units of measure.

Shane,

Sort of.

Some of us use the reticle for in field measurements.

The outside (or inside) spread of a buck or bulls rack is measured in inches and MOA works better for that.

Holding in 1/2 MOA increments is as close as possible for most of us on a wind hold and is easier than 1/10 mil holds.

Both can work but MOA is better for a hunting optic, at least in my opinion. I like to lay inches down at yards and MOA does a good job in that realm.

And if you want to get really picky, for a fixed horizontal distance, the second vertical increment to produce the second MOA of deflection is bigger than the first, the third increment bigger than the second, and so on.

I can see where moa would be faster for calculating inches of antler spread.

Why not do centimeters of antler spread, however many meters away?

Yes, or decimeters. We'd all be Euro cool.

Went to a welding shop and asked to have a metal frame made, 20x50cm... They said, "we don't got no centimeters here." May have been Wyoming, or more likely SE Oregon....

You guys have all been very helpful with my barrage of questions. It's not easy to make an intelligent decision if you lack the intelligence.

Ok, what is IPHY?

Inch per hundred yards.

1 MOA = 1.047" at 100 yards

Let me help you a smidge if I may.

It doesn't matter which you pick.




Travis

Check out the optics forum....

Thanks. I see the light! LOL

One of the best resources on the web for all the sight units is found at What's MOA. Mils and other units are included down the page along with videos from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Here's an excerpt:

MILLS works just as well, your 1/3 MOA is very close to .3 MILLS. I use .3 MILLS as approximately 1 inch per hundred yards. .3 MILLS is actually 1.074 inches @ 100 yards.

When in doubt, [bleep] the metric system.

Mils are for soccer fans

[bleep]

Soccer looks nice.

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.