Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Mil vs. MOA

Looking at getting a new scope for long range shooting and debating getting one in mils vs. MOA. I understand the basic principle of milliradians, it's just a system of subtension like MOA except it jives evenly with the metric system such that 1 mil subtends 100mm at 100 meters, 200mm at 200 meters, etc.

Problem is that so many ranges and target sizes are in inches/yards - 500, 600, 1000 yard ranges with targets 12"x18" or whatever. MOA works well there, even if less precisely precise as the distance increases due to 1 MOA = 1.04" at 100 yards, but even if you go by 1 MOA = 1" even you're only off by .4" at 1000 yards. You can do the math to convert inches/yards to cm or meters but without doing that it seems a bit clumsy to remember that a 1/10 mil click moves POI .36" at 100 yards, .72" at 200...

Basically asking if you guys see any real advantage of one system over the other given American ranges with their mostly English measurements?

After you set your base zero it's all moot. The dope chart for your trajectory and zero should have the corrections in whichever angular system you prefer.

Jim, here's a thread from January that discusses Mil vs MOA. I read through it and its like me trying to take a drink out of a fire hose. Lots of info. My takeaway was "pick one and stay with it."

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/13317081/mil-vs-moa

One issue I discuss on a daily basis and the I have to gauge my audience. The primary error that I see shooters make, is thinking linear measurements. Especially when shooting at distances beyond three hundred yards.

My point in this case is; Mils and always mils. Simplified, mils are base ten scaling. Looking at the reticle, there are static dots or hash-marks specifically situated an equal distance from one another. To jump from dot to dot is exactly one mil. Since most mil based scopes are .10 MRAD adjustments, ten clicks will change your point of impact by one mil in the direction in which you dialed.

A common misconception is that MOA adjustment (in traditional riflescope) and Mil (like what we are discussing today) are linear measurements. They are not! (See attachment)
MOA (minute of angle) is an angular measurement and so is (MIL = short for) miliradian. It is a coincidence that when MOA is converted into a linear measurement that it subtends 1.047 inches at 100 yards. That is so close to 1” that most people round down and consider it to be 1” at 100 yards. So a scope with .25 MOA adjustments translates to each click moving the reticle .25 of an inch at 100 yards.
However, the fact that 0.1 mrad is 1cm at 100 meters is most certainly not a coincidence. That is most certainly intended that way by design and comes out of the very definition of the angular measurement of a radian and of the method behind the metric system.
That is the beauty of the metric system: you can start with very few basic unitless measurements and scale everything from there.

1 radian is simply an angle where the subtended arc is equal to the radius, for example 1mrad is 0.001 of a radian, so 1mrad is an angle where the subtended arc is one thousandth of the radius, for example if an object at a certain distance from you subtends exactly 1 mrad, then the size of that object in linear units is almost exactly one thousandth of a distance between you and that object.
What linear units you happen to use makes no difference. It will work with either of them.
It is simplest to use with metric linear units because of the base10 scaling, of course.

With moderately retarded measurement systems we use for traditional reasons (like inches/feet/yards for linear units and degrees for angular units)you know for common things like to measure a trailer or perhaps building something, translation between angular and linear measurements is a lot more involved.
Hence, between MOA and MRAD, for as long as all you need to do is trajectory compensation, it does not matter what you use.

Either system works, but if we’re taking a closer look, and with linear measurements aside (you should be using your reticle as an angular ruler, rather than the target grid or dimensions as a linear ruler, anyway), MRAD is more intuitive and less complicated when actually working with DOPE and making/remembering adjustments.

You can still use MOA when measuring your group size, as is current convention, even if you use MRAD for everything else.

Been toying with my own system based on Southern.

Moving the crosshairs a smidge equals "a mite" over there, "some more" out further, "a bunch" out yonder and "a right smart ways" way out yonder. Just need to solidify the base unit of "smidge"...

This^^^^^^^^^^^^

So long as the reticle sub-tensions match the turret graduations................most of the early scopes did not, hence MOA turret scopes with mil reticles getting a bad rep.

MM

Speaking my language, now...Grin 😎

Thanks to all for the input, I really appreciate the discussion in helping me make up my mind. The metric basis and scaling by 10's is definitely easier to work with in your head. MOA is just so ingrained it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks but it's probably about time to enter the 21st Century. Most likely will get an SWFA SS 10x42 or maybe 12x42, I have one that's seven years old which has proven very repeatable, it's a lot of bang within my budget range.






Btw, going to put it on my 1885 Low Wall in .22 R Lovell using bullets made from empty rimfire cases. Can't get more 21st Century than that...

This keeps you from having to cipher all those numbers and "guzentas" that others have to deal with.

You'll do yourself a big favor to forget about the idea that mils are metric. Mils are unitless, meaning they work in any measurement system, and are equal to 1 lateral unit per 1,000 distance units. That can be 1m at 1,000m, 1 yard per 1,000 yards, or whatever you want. The only complication with using it for english units is that we tend to measure distance in different units (yards) than lateral units (inches). So instead of 1 yard per 1,000 yards, we're using 36" per 1,000 yards - same thing, just converted to inches instead of yards.

You'd also do well to forget about thinking of drop and drift in inches and trying to convert anything, as MM and mathman pointed out above. I recommend using mils partly because it encourages people to do this; too many MOA shooters still insist on thinking of drops in inches. Set your dope chart in mils and use it; the only numbers it needs are yardage and corresponding mils for drop and drift. Leave inches off the chart.

The point everybody misses when talking MILS vs MOA adjustments is that many dial scopes (with zero stops) are rev limited. Rev limitations means you can only turn 2 or 2 1/2 turns of up adjustment. How is that significant?? Well their are only so many splines on a turret. If you have an 100 spline turret on a MILS scope, you can get 100 x 0.1 MIL clicks or 10 MILS per turn (34.4 MOA) of adjustment. The same 100 turn turret on a 1/4 MOA adjusting scope you'll only get 25 MOA per turret turn.

Now if you never shoot further than 700-800 yds, it really doesn't matter much. On the other hand if you have aspirations of shooting well north of 1k yards, then MILS adjusting scope is the only way to travel....IMHO and YMMV

I shifted from moa knobs + mil reticle to mil/mil knob and reticle, and the swfa 3.5 x15 is my most favorite scope in the whole world now, more so than my two nightforce

People make this WAY to complicated.
Mathman, make your simple statement a Rule.
Thanks

one thing Iv'e noticed is that it seems mil scopes tend to have crisper , a bit more definite clicks , than MOA scopes


because of the slighter coarser measurement , IMO

I was really wondering if somebody from Idaho would be proficient in the Southern system, but your use of "yonder" establishes your credentials.

You replied to me; are you saying my post was too complicated? If so, you must not have understood or read it correctly. Let me sum it up for you: 1 mil = 1:1000, period, in any distance units you want to use.

Mils is a very simple system, and many of us (mathman included, but not just him) have been saying to use a mil or moa (instead of inches) dope card for a long time.

Reticle matching the dial is like having a yard stick on your scope.

Chart says two boogers, dial it two boogers or hold on the second booger hash mark.

So simple, even a southerner can do it.

MOA dial and MIL reticle sucks worse than guessing.

I did...sorry bout that....and I do understand, and use, both systems.
I also do as Mathman suggested...been making my own ballistic tapes for years...and the`re on my scopes for quick dialing, or reference if I choose to use the reticule.
Thanks

There's a subtlety, which admittedly doesn't amount to a lot for typical amounts of elevation correction, but I can't help but mention it. That is, each mil of angular change does not represent the same amount of vertical movement on the plane of the target.