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

Lol

There is a technical point (which usually goes unnoticed) about the amount of vertical change in the target plane not being the same for successive increments of angular correction. For the relatively small angles involved the difference doesn't amount to too much, but it is there.

I bet her eyes are still rolling around.

I love the debates about whether MIL or MOA is easier because the debates are entertaining. However, I always wonder why proponents of one or the other feel that counting the little marks in the scope is somehow easier with one over the other. Count the little markie things and then adjust that number of little markie things.

Yeah, it CAN be that simple, when it’s just you and your reticle, and you’ve seen every impact or trace while on the gun....but “Come up 4 ‘little markie things’ “...sometimes doesn’t translate well between others outside your scope, or between a dope card and a reticle. Neither matters, you just gotta be able to think in MOA or MIL.....your pick.

As long a you (the shooter) and the "others outside your scope" know what unit you are using, not only CAN it be that simple, it IS that simple, irrespective of the units. The only caveat to that is the assumption that the units of measure on the reticle = the units of measure on the turret. This applies whether we are talking, mis or moa or 1/4" or 1/10" or 10 feet.

Ranging is a useful capability. It doesn't replace a laser rangefinder for long shots, but it can be done without having to break your position.

Any adjustment you make with a mil scope will be in units of centi-yards if your range to target was in yards. That's just the way the math works. You're shooting at 375 yards? Each click is 3.75 centi-yards. Either you like that sort of thing or you don't. Most people don't.

Which is totally irrelevant when attempting to hit your target.

I don't think most men are "afraid" of them at all.

It's more likely they see them as being a long way around to get to the same place for no good reason.

I’m not disagreeing/saying it can’t be, just that the ‘caveats’ can be rather extensive between reticle markings and call outs between folks. 1/2 MOA, 18”, 2 mils, etc.....can all equal 7 squiggly lines or 2.5 dots, etc.....depending on whatever the fancy reticle is marked in. You go to the lowest level until you know everything is on the same page/wavelength....that’s using the system chosen, not the variable graphics on the lens.... unless you know what the other sees in THEIR window.

To the other, centi-who cares? What’s the MIL/MOA value at the range, no matter what the range units are? That’s all you need.....not some linear measurement superimposed onto the angular.

If you think that’s the way it works and that using either system is the ‘long way around’ (especially mils), then you’re using neither correctly. Hell, I’m no LR ‘expert’, and even my dumbass can figure out that ditching some imaginary ruler and needing to contemplate some greater meaning into either system is the slooooow part. LOL

I think it's pretty clear to most of us the OP's use of "afraid" wasn't meaning trembling in fear, but avoidance just like you've displayed. bigwhoop's post on the previous page is another example.

IMO after all the discussions about it, anyone who still thinks a mil/mil scope is "the long way around" is being intentionally ignorant. It is the easy way, some guys just refuse to accept how simple it is. It's only difficult if you make it difficult.

I spent 50 years here in Alaska killing critters and all was well until I discovered the "Optics Forum" on the Camp Fire. I even did most of my hunting and shooting with "set & forget" Leupold scopes zeroed for 200 yards.

Then I found out the truly good shots were shooting further then I ever dreamed of shooting at a critter. They are turret twisting, ranging and hitting way out there, I was awe struck because they might miss a first shot at steel, but they always got first shot killing hits on critters, no matter what the distance. It's not just them, they usually have a minimum of one and often more people assisting them with range finders, spotting scope, scouting, etc. After what seems to me like for ever they take the shot and "bang flop".

I will never experience that type of hunting/shooting here in Alaska. Most Alaskan game is shot well under 200 yards, more like 150 yards. Often any extra time is spent making sure the antlers or horns are legal or the bear does not have cubs and quickly looking for an improvised rest.

But, that has not stopped me from getting a couple of quality FFP Mil Mil scopes to learn something new and extend my shooting range. I even have a CDS and turrets and ballistic tape from Kenton Industries.

When I shot the bull moose this year I fired immediately after I saw 3 brow tines on the left side. Scope was on 10 X and I estimated the range was about 150 yards and I had a good improvised rest.

I admit to being a bit "scared" by the mil mil stuff, but know it is not that hard if one puts forth a little effort.