Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunting Optics Why are so many shooters afraid of a mil/mil scope

Nightforce moar reticle does the same thing. I all the same just a different unit of measure. Use what you like

Is in an moa ~ an inch at 100 yards and a mil dot ~10 centimeters at 100 meters?

Sometimes I have mil dot reticles, mil dot turrets, or range finder stuck on meters..... I hate that.

MOA and inches is about a 5% error. which isn't enough to worry about when holding for windage.

Nobody I know of uses MOA for military tactical LR applications. A lot I know use MIL for LR hunting, match, and every other application. MOA isn’t hard to understand at all, if you grew up under a US measurement system, but unless you have YEARS of using it for LR shooting, it doesn’t seem to translate as easily/quickly from adjustment to hit, for shooters universally. For hunting/target shooting, whatever you like and can use or just want to use is best. There is no wrong answer with either. When there’s no way to go down range with a tape, and not much in the way of a known size reference visible, MIL and especially mil with FFP overcomes that far faster for many. MOA and using FFP can do the same thing, probably just as fast for those ingrained in the inches conversion forever, OR who are mentally capable of throwing that indoctrination out the window and just running their system as intended and not thinking they HAVE to view it as a linear to understand it. MILS tends to force that, out of the gate, and since it’s a 10-factor, it’s easy to grasp from an entry point. Reticle clutter, style, etc with either is preference, too......I wouldn’t argue against either from any sporting perspective. Not sure if my perspective makes any sense, but it’s just how I’ve seen it back when it mattered and was far more common for me than these days.

While the origins of a "mil" is metric, the way we use mils in shooting is not metric or imperial, it can be used with either system. It is decimal, but not metric; I think that sometimes gets confused. I'd rather not have my range finder set in meters either, but that's a different thing than using a mil/mil scope.

If a guy prefers to think in inches (as I do), it's pretty easy to recognize a mil is 1 yard in 1,000 yards. (same as 1 meter in 1,000 meters; the angle described is the same regardless of units). 1 yard = 36 inches, so a mil is 36" across a target at 1,000 yards, or 3.6" across at 100 yards.

It's even easier than that though - you don't need to think in inches at all except if you're using it to range a target. Just think of drop and windage units in mils rather than inches; it doesn't get any simpler than that. If a round hits low for example - we don't need to know or care what that is in inches; just measure it with the reticle, lets say it's 1.2 mils low, then just hold or dial that 1.2 mil correction.

Thanks.....I think you just explained the differences FAR better than I had tried to in all that typing just before. LOL

I think mils can be very metric in use. They have a base ten correlation when used with metric measurements of distance. One mil is 10 cm at 100 m and 100 m at 1000 m.

I suppose they are not metric when we insist on using them with yards and inches. I'm guilty of doing this too. I'm too indoctrinated in the use of American measurement. I think there is a definite metric advantage, though.

How many inches per mil at 632 yards?

How many cm per mil at 632 meters?

I can answer the latter immediately, 63.2 cm. I'm not so fast at 3.6x632/100 to solve for inches. It comes out at 22.75.

As mentioned, as long as you are getting corrections in mils, none of that matters. If, however, you are told your shot was off by 18" on that 632 yard shot, what are you going to do about it? On the other hand, when told you missed by 45 cm at 632 meters I'd like to think that most of us would be able to quickly realize that a 7 click correction or .7 mil hold is in order (45 is 75% of 60, .7 of a mil should get you there).

I'd like to see more binos and spotters offered with milling reticles. Being able to make corrections with angular measurement is so much easier than converting linear values, even in metric.

Tell your spotter to smarten up, for starters, and get him to give you drop and windage in mils. If you're using MOA, same thing.
If you are your own spotter, you've got the mil "ruler" right there on the reticle, so that's how you measure how far off the shot is.

There's no good reason to use an offset distance measurement (inches, cm, whatever) in that situation rather than angular mil or moa measurement, and people's insistence on doing so is the reason this thread exists; it's what makes people afraid of using mils because they think it's difficult. It's only hard to use if you make it that way.

While there's nothing inherently metric about Mil scopes, people don't like thinking in centi-yards and that's what happens with Mil + imperial units. MOA has the advantage that you can fudge to 1" at 100y and only be off by a factor of pi/3 which is close enough for most applications.

So in the US MOA will continue to win as long as imperial units dominate.

When you spot your own shots, why do people insist on measuring how far off you are with the reticle, when it's easier and faster to just dial to your impact.

Do you call your corrections out loud then holler "send it" too......

Only when I wear my skinny jeans and flat brimmed hat..... send it mo fo

And hopefully not blow the ass out of your pants going prone.........

The bling on my skinny jeans bedazzles and confuses them...... "send it"

I’m sure his skinny jeans are at least 8% spandex.

That'd certainly help the cause, providing he's under 50% bedazzled coverage...........

I think it depends on what they're using it for: big targets at very long range or tiny varmints at medium-long range. For small varmints at distance, I want the smallest adjustments possible (1/8MOA or 1/4MOA) to allow slightly finer click adjustment, and a matching MOA reticle in SFP since I'm likely only turning turrets at maximum magnification.
For big targets at a variety of distances, I think FFP and mil/mil is easier to calculate for and the slightly larger 1/10mil adjustments will be advantageous when twisting turrets. That said, the most important thing is having the reticle and clicks on the same scale. Mildot reticle+MOA clicks is a PITA.

Why would you do any of that? There's no need unless you're using it to determine range to the target (which is prone to error anyway).

Unless you're shooting from a bench rest, it's not always easy to dial the turret with one hand and hold the rifle steady and on target with the other. Easier to stay in position/on target, take a measurement, and dial it in. If the rifle is entirely supported and secured by a rest, then dialing to the impact is a good way to go.

Yep, mil/mil is stupid simple, to the point that even I get it, lol. What I wish for, for my 1000 plus yard steel clanger, is a straight power, say along the lines of a SWFA 12X, with repeatable turrets and half mil hashmarks on the windage only...dial elevation and hold wind.

You meant hold it, eehh?